- 11 -
address.9 Surely petitioner must have realized that respondent
was likely to use the address appearing on her returns in
corresponding with her. And surely petitioner must have realized
that respondent was likely to use the address appearing on her
returns in issuing her a refund check.10 After all, it was "for
security reasons" that petitioner allegedly notified respondent
of a change of address.
Fourth, in corresponding with respondent, petitioner
continued to use the Summit Avenue address as late as November
1995. Thus, correspondence attached to petitioner's motion to
restrain shows that petitioner used the Summit Avenue address in
letters dated June 15, 1991, October 5, 1992, October 18, 1992,
December 12, 1992, March 14, 1995, July 23, 1995, October 4,
1995, and November 15, 1995.
Fifth, based on petitioner's motion to restrain, petitioner
first used the P.O. Box 5072 address in January 1994 and then not
again until late November 1995. Between those times, petitioner
used the Summit Avenue address in letters to respondent dated
9 It will be recalled that petitioner's tax returns for
1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991 were filed on Oct. 21, 1992, June 20,
1994, July 2, 1996, and Nov. 19, 1996. Thus, all four returns
listing the Summit Avenue address were filed after the purported
letter dated Apr. 10, 1988, and the purported letter dated Mar.
3, 1989.
10 It will be recalled that petitioner's tax returns for
1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991 claimed refunds in the amounts of
$1,725, $7,317, $1,254, and $10,650, respectively.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011