- 15 -
curious that he did not notify the agent directly, as provided
for in Rev. Proc. 90-18, supra. Instead, his letter was
addressed to the district director and did not mention either the
examining agent’s name or the fact that petitioners were
currently under audit.
More problematic is the simultaneous submission to the
service center of mutually contradictory instructions regarding
the address to which correspondence should be sent, when the
pendency of a notice of deficiency was known to petitioners and
Mr. Bezkorowajny. The fact that the correspondence provisions of
the power of attorney form were specifically altered to request
that correspondence be sent to petitioners at the Box 227
address, while an accompanying letter of the same date was
drafted to direct that correspondence be sent to the Braun Co.
address, leads us to conclude that the address instructions were
in patent conflict. In a similar vein, petitioners have offered
no explanation of their failure to respond to respondent’s March
13 letter seeking clarification of their intentions regarding an
address change. We also note that approximately 1 month after
respondent sought this clarification, petitioners filed their
1995 return and left the address section thereon blank. We
believe it was at least foreseeable by petitioners and Mr.
Bezkorowajny that their March 5 submissions would result in
confusion regarding the address to which they wished the notice
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