- 6 -
was mailed to an address that is identical to the address
petitioners listed on the Federal income tax return they filed
most recently before the mailing of the notices of deficiency.
The other notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioners at a
similar address except the word "Creek" was omitted. Petitioners
never provided clear and concise notice to respondent that they
wanted to be contacted at a different address. During cross-
examination, petitioner testified as follows:
Q. Okay. Have you ever sent the Internal Revenue
Service a notice or requested in any way that they not
send notices of deficiency related to your personal tax
situation? Have you ever requested they send those
notices to any address other than HC 71 Lone Pine Road,
Burns, Oregon, 97720?
A. I've never requested they send them to any address
so the answer is no.
We are further satisfied that at least one of the notices of
deficiency was addressed to petitioners at their last known
address (according to the testimony of the U.S. Postal Service
employee, both addresses were proper). See King v. Commissioner,
857 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. 88 T.C. 1042 (1987); Abeles
v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1035 (1988).
Petitioners argue that respondent was aware of numerous
other addresses used by petitioner as a tax matters partner in
various partnerships. According to petitioners, any of these
other addresses should be considered their last known address
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011