- 10 -
knowledge rather than to what may in fact be the taxpayer's most
current address." Frieling v. Commissioner, supra at 49. The
burden of proving that a notice of deficiency was not sent to the
taxpayer's last known address is on the taxpayer. Yusko v.
Commissioner, supra at 808.
Respondent mailed one copy of the notice of deficiency to
the address listed on petitioner's 1986 return--the last tax
return filed by petitioner prior to the mailing of the notice of
deficiency on August 24, 1994. Consequently, the notice of
deficiency was mailed to petitioner's last known address unless
petitioner can demonstrate: (1) He provided respondent with clear
and concise notice of a change of address; or that (2) prior to
the mailing of the notice of deficiency, respondent knew of a
change in petitioner's address and did not exercise due diligence
in ascertaining petitioner's correct address. See Abeles v.
Commissioner, supra.
A. Clear and Concise Notice of Change of Address
Petitioner's contention that the notice of deficiency is
invalid rests partially on the contention that he gave clear and
concise notice of a change of address to respondent by filing
Forms 4868 for the years 1987 through 1994. We disagree with
petitioner for several reasons.
First and foremost, petitioner has not established that he
listed the Kansas Address on any of the Forms 4868 that he filed
with respondent. Second, we have repeatedly held that the mere
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011