Patrick Anthony Masino - Page 5

                                                - 5 -                                                   

            from the date the notice of deficiency was mailed.  Therefore, we                           
            must consider whether the notice of deficiency was valid.                                   
                  Section 6212(a) authorizes the Commissioner to send a notice                          
            of deficiency to the taxpayer by certified or registered mail.                              
            The notice is valid if it is mailed to the last known address of                            
            the taxpayer.  Sec. 6212(b)(1).  If the address to which the                                
            notice is mailed is not the taxpayer’s last known address, the                              
            notice is generally invalid.  Clodfelter v. Commissioner, 57 T.C.                           
            102, 104-105 (1971), affd. 527 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1975).                                    
            However, a notice of deficiency that is not mailed to the                                   
            taxpayer's last known address will be valid from the date of                                
            mailing if the taxpayer actually receives the notice in                                     
            sufficient time to file a timely petition without prejudicial                               
            delay.  Clodfelter v. Commissioner, 527 F.2d at 757; Mulvania v.                            
            Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 68 (1983).  Providing the taxpayer with                           
            actual notice of the deficiency determination in a timely manner                            
            is the essence of the statutory scheme.  Mulvania v.                                        
            Commissioner, supra.                                                                        
                  Petitioner maintains that his last known address is the Van                           
            Nuys address.  Petitioner contends that he reported his Van Nuys                            
            address to the office of pretrial services of the U.S. District                             
            Court in connection with the Federal money laundering case prior                            
            to the date that the notice of deficiency was mailed.  Petitioner                           
            argues that because respondent was involved in his criminal                                 
            prosecution, the address notification to the office of pretrial                             
            services should be imputed to respondent for purposes of                                    


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011