- 8 -
1988), affg. on other grounds 88 T.C. 1042 (1987). Even if the
notice is mailed to the wrong address, it will be valid if the
taxpayer receives actual notice of the deficiency and is not
unduly prejudiced in timely filing his or her petition. Erhard
v. Commissioner, 87 F.3d 273, 275 (9th Cir. 1996), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1994-344 (quoting Patmon & Young Profl. Corp. v.
Commissioner, 55 F.3d 216, 218 (6th Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo.
1993-143); Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 53 (1983).
Respondent's motion to dismiss is based on the ground that
the petition was not timely filed. This Court will not dismiss
the petition as untimely filed unless respondent first
establishes that respondent mailed a notice of deficiency to
petitioner and proves the date on which the notice was mailed.
Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 736 (1989), affd. without
published opinion 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991).
The record here includes a copy of the notice dated April
13, 1984, that was sent to petitioner as well as a copy of the
U.S. Postal Service Form 3877 (For Registered, Insured, C.O.D.,
Certified, and Express Mail) with an April 13, 1984, postmark
date. The legend stamped at the top left-hand side of the Form
3877 states "Statutory Notices of Deficiency, For The Year(s)
Indicated, Have Been Sent To The Following Taxpayers".
Petitioner's name and the Bell Avenue address appear on the Form
3877 in addition to the redacted names of four other taxpayers.
Petitioner has not disputed the mailing of the deficiency notice
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011