Theolia Millsap - Page 9

                                                - 9 -                                                   

            notice of deficiency, we will dismiss on that ground, rather than                           
            for lack of a timely filed petition.  Pietanza v. Commissioner,                             
            92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989), affd. without published opinion 935                            
            F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991); Weinroth v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 430,                            
            435 (1980); Keeton v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 377, 379-380 (1980).                            
            As indicated, the parties disagree whether the first and                                    
            second notices of deficiency were mailed to petitioner at his                               
            last known address as required by section 6212(b).  The phrase                              
            "last known address" is not defined in the Code or in the                                   
            regulations.  We have held that a taxpayer's last known address                             
            is the address shown on his or her most recently filed return,                              
            absent clear and concise notice of a change of address.  Abeles                             
            v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1035 (1988).  The burden of                                  
            proving that the notice of deficiency was not sent to the                                   
            taxpayer at his or her last known address is on the taxpayer.                               
            Yusko v. Commissioner, supra at 808.                                                        
            Respondent contends that the Atteiram Drive address was                                     
            petitioner's last known address.  If the Atteiram Drive address                             
            was not petitioner's last known address, respondent submits that                            
            the East 11th Street address was petitioner's last known address.                           
            In either event, respondent contends that the notices of                                    
            deficiency are valid because they were sent to petitioner at his                            
            last known address.                                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011