- 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