James A. and Muriel M. Andrews - Page 12

                                        - 12 -                                         

               Given the conflicting information submitted to respondent by            
          petitioners, respondent’s efforts at clarification, and                      
          petitioners’ failure to respond, we believe that respondent                  
          exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to ascertain                    
          petitioners’ correct address, particularly in light of the brief             
          period between the time respondent first became aware of a                   
          discrepancy in the addresses and the time when the 3-year period             
          of limitations would expire.  Unlike Sicari, the identity of the             
          two addresses of which respondent was aware herein would not have            
          been “apparent” upon comparison.  Also, there is no evidence                 
          regarding which, if any, database maintained by respondent had               
          been modified to reflect the Braun Co. address.  The only                    
          evidence of respondent’s use of the Braun Co. address was his                
          letter seeking clarification of petitioners’ conflicting address             
          instructions.  Given the ambiguity introduced by those                       
          instructions, we do not believe that respondent’s continued use              
          of the old Box 227 address constitutes a lack of reasonable                  
          diligence.  As the Court of Appeals stated in Sicari:                        
               faced with two addresses corresponding to different                     
               locations * * * the Service could not be faulted for                    
               using the old address under circumstances where it had                  
               no particular reason to know at which of the two                        
               different locations the taxpayer was living. * * *                      
               [Sicari v. Commissioner, supra at 929-930.]                             
          Nor was respondent required to send the notice to both addresses.            
          “[R]easonable diligence does not require that the IRS send                   
          duplicate notices to every address of which it has knowledge.”               

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