- 9 -
filed return.4 Respondent’s computer records did not show a
different address. Secondly, notwithstanding petitioners’
allegation that they did not receive a copy of the 1994 notice of
deficiency, Mr. Johnson apparently arranged for a conference to
reconsider the audit findings for 1994 and brought relevant
information with him. Mr. Johnson was afforded the opportunity
to testify and explain this anomaly, but he declined. We are
entitled to consider that his testimony would not have been
favorable to petitioners’ position. McKay v. Commissioner, 886
F.2d 1237, 1238 (9th Cir. 1989), affg. 89 T.C. 1063 (1987);
Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165
(1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).
Petitioners were advised several times that the period for
timely filing a petition expired on December 2, 1996, and they
had ample time to do so.
Petitioners contend that their submission of Forms 4361 and
8821 was sufficient to notify respondent of their new address.
From this record, we cannot conclude that petitioners gave clear
and concise notice of a new address. Both of those forms were
returned to Mr. Johnson, and there is no evidence that the mere
receipt of either of these forms by the service center causes a
change to be made to respondent’s computer records. In
4 There is no indication that petitioners filed a 1995
return or that such a return, if filed, reflected any different
address.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011