- 7 -
within the meaning of section 6212, and respondent's failure to
mail the notice of deficiency to any of these other addresses
renders the notice invalid. We disagree. First of all, the
argument has no application to Betty J. Hoyt. There is nothing
in the record that suggests respondent was aware of any other
address for her during the relevant period. Secondly, we find no
authority that supports petitioners' proposition that an address
used to contact a tax matters partner in connection with an FPAA
would, other than by coincidence, be considered the tax matters
partner's last known address for purposes of a notice of
deficiency. For a discussion on this point, see Lueck v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-334. Furthermore, contrary to
petitioners' contention, as we have pointed out previously, a
taxpayer can have only one last known address for purposes of
section 6212. Abeles v. Commissioner, supra at 1030; Cantu v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-354; Lueck v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioners further argue that respondent's failure to
remail the notice of deficiency to the same or different
addresses violated respondent's duty of due diligence.
Respondent's obligation to exercise due diligence, however,
applies to the process of ascertaining a taxpayer's last known
address. King v. Commissioner, supra at 679, 681. In this case,
as indicated, at least one of the notices of deficiency was
addressed to petitioners at their last known address. That being
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011