- 7 -
timely petition, it follows that we lack jurisdiction. Secs.
6213(a), 7502; Rule 13(a), (c); see Normac, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra. The question presented is whether
dismissal of this case should be premised on petitioners'
failure to file a timely petition under section 6213(a), or on
respondent's failure to issue a valid notice of deficiency under
section 6212. Petitioners contend that the notice is invalid
because respondent did not use due diligence in attempting to
determine their last known address prior to mailing the notice.4
Although the phrase "last known address" is not defined in
the Internal Revenue Code or in the regulations thereunder, we
have held that a taxpayer's last known address is the address
shown on the taxpayer's most recently filed return, absent clear
and concise notice of a change of address.5 Abeles v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1035 (1988); see King v.
Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. 88 T.C.
1042 (1987). The burden of proving that a notice of deficiency
was not sent to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known
4 Petitioners do not complain that respondent failed to
send a copy of the notice of deficiency to Mr. Pratesi.
5 It should be recalled that petitioners' income tax
returns for 1994 and 1995 were filed on Nov. 13, 1996, and that
the notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioners on Sept. 16,
1997. As previously noted, it appears that petitioners' income
tax return for 1996 was not filed before the notice of deficiency
was mailed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011