- 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