Richard L. Pickering - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         

          of a notice of deficiency has been applied in the absence of                
          evidence of actual delivery of the notice.  See, e.g., Boothe v.            
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-361; see also Armstrong v.                    
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-328, affd. 15 F.3d 970 (10th Cir.             
          1994); Greenstein v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-405; Zee v.              
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-83; cf. Price v. Commissioner, 76             
          T.C. 389, 392 (1981).                                                       
               As was the case in Boothe, we focus on the fact that, the              
          incorrect ZIP code aside, the notice of deficiency was properly             
          addressed to petitioner using his correct name, post office box             
          number, city, and State.  In addition, the record includes a                
          statement from the acting Postmaster in Wrightwood, California,             
          that the incorrect ZIP code would not have affected the proper              
          delivery of the notice of deficiency.  Petitioner has offered no            
          evidence to the contrary.  Further, we find it significant that             
          the envelope bearing the notice of deficiency was returned to               
          respondent marked "unclaimed", as opposed to "address unknown",             
          "insufficient address", or "no such street or number".3                     
               Considering all of the circumstances, we are satisfied that            
          the use of an incorrect ZIP code in the mailing of the notice of            
          deficiency in this case constitutes an inconsequential error that           

          3  We also note that the current Domestic Mail Manual (DMM)                 
          of the U.S. Postal Service continues to state that a ZIP code is            
          not a required element of a delivery address for every piece of             
          mail deposited into the postal system.  DMM, sec. A010.12, Issue            
          53 (Jan. 1, 1998).                                                          




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011