- 8 -
address is on the taxpayer. Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806,
808 (1987).
Petitioners do not dispute that they did not provide
respondent with clear and concise notice of a change of address.
However, petitioners contend that Mr. Pratesi's letter dated May
16, 1997, put respondent's agent on notice that Mr. Bulakites
was in the process of relocating to Michigan, and, therefore,
that respondent knew or should have known that the Guilford
address was not petitioners' correct address.
Considering all of the facts and circumstances, including
the fact that petitioners listed the Guilford address as their
address on the Form 2848 submitted to respondent on May 21,
1997, we are not persuaded that respondent in the exercise of
reasonable diligence knew or should have known that the Guilford
address was not petitioners' correct address. Thus we find that
the deficiency notice was mailed to their last known address.
In addition, petitioners actually received the notice of
deficiency no later than the latter part of October 1997.
It is well settled that a notice of deficiency is not
invalid merely because it is not sent to a taxpayer at the
taxpayer's last known address. In particular, an otherwise
erroneously addressed notice of deficiency remains valid under
section 6212(a) if it is actually received in sufficient time to
permit the taxpayer, without prejudice, to file a timely
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011