- 2 -
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether a notice of
deficiency was issued and properly mailed to petitioners for the
year 1987; and, if so (2) whether respondent had an obligation to
remail the notice of deficiency after it was returned.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
Petitioners are husband and wife. They filed a joint Federal
income tax return for the year 1987. Petitioners resided in
Burns, Oregon, at the time the petition was filed in this case.
References to petitioner are to Walter J. Hoyt III.
During the relevant period, Joseph Pierce was employed by
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in Sacramento, California. He
was generally responsible in that district for the preparation of
notices of deficiency, and he was specifically responsible for
the preparation of the notices of deficiency here under
consideration. Mr. Pierce was also responsible for the
preparation of final notices of partnership administrative
adjustment (FPAA's).
Mr. Pierce personally prepared two notices of deficiency
addressed to petitioners for the year 1987. Records maintained
by respondent and the U.S. Postal Service indicate that notices
of deficiency for the year 1987 were sent by certified mail to
petitioners on May 3, 1996. One of the notices was addressed to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011