- 11 -
the taxpayer husband’s bankruptcy filing employing the “new”
address, and the Commissioner had at that time entered the “new”
address in a database and sent two letters to the taxpayers at
the “new” address. That the “old” and “new” addresses were the
same location was deemed “apparent” in Sicari, taking into
account all the information in the Service's files. In the
instant case, less than 30 days prior to mailing the notice,
respondent received petitioners’ March 5 submissions, consisting
of two sets of contradictory instructions regarding the address
to which they wished correspondence to be sent: (1) A power of
attorney form specifically altered to indicate that
correspondence should be sent to the previously used old address
(the Box 227 address), and (2) an attached cover letter directing
that certain requested information and “future mail” be sent to a
new, different address (the Braun Co. address). In response,
respondent promptly (8 days later) sent a letter to petitioners
at the new Braun Co. address advising that petitioners were under
audit and that if they wished to effect a change of address, they
should return an enclosed Form 8822, Change of Address. Although
petitioners received this letter, they did not respond to it.
Less than 3 weeks later, on April 2, 1996, with the 3-year period
of limitations about to expire, respondent mailed the notice of
deficiency to the old Box 227 address.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011