James A. and Muriel M. Andrews - Page 14

                                        - 14 -                                         

          preferences may have imposed on him any further obligation of                
          reasonable diligence, we believe he met that burden under the                
          standard applied by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.             
          Cf. Sicari v. Commissioner, 136 F.2d 925 (2d Cir. 1998); Tadros              
          v. Commissioner, 763 F.2d 89 (2d Cir. 1985).                                 
               Our conclusion is reinforced in this case by the actions of             
          petitioners and their authorized representative, Mr.                         
          Bezkorowajny.  Mr. Bezkorowajny claims that he hand-delivered the            
          March 5 letter and power of attorney to the Taxpayer Service                 
          Center in Brooklyn because he was endeavoring to comply with Rev.            
          Proc. 90-18, 1990-1 C.B. 491, which establishes procedures for               
          taxpayers to make a change of address, and because he wanted to              
          make certain that the agent auditing petitioners’ return would               
          receive the change of address “in time”--which we take to mean               
          before issuance of the notice or expiration of the 3-year period             
          of limitations, which was near.  The problem with Mr.                        
          Bezkorowajny’s explanation, as we see it, is that Rev. Proc. 90-             
          18, supra, provides a considerably more direct means of notifying            
          the examining agent of an address change when a taxpayer is under            
          audit.  As an alternative to notice to the service center, Rev.              
          Proc. 90-18, supra, allows a taxpayer to effect a change of                  
          address by notifying the IRS employee who has initiated contact              
          with him.  If Mr. Bezkorowajny, a former IRS Appeals officer, had            
          as his goal the prompt notification of the examining agent, it is            

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