- 12 -
If we were to hold that the Commissioner is obliged to
regard the address shown on a Form 4868 as a taxpayer's current
address, we would impose an unreasonable administrative burden on
the Commissioner to record every address appearing on every Form
4868 for every taxpayer. Also, we would cause uncertainty by
requiring the Commissioner to use an address that the taxpayer
may not have communicated to him3 and that the taxpayer did not
clearly direct the Commissioner to use. Cf. United States v.
Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 811 (9th Cir. 1984); Farnham v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-642. Therefore, we have held that
the taxpayer must clearly communicate that the new address should
be used by respondent. E.g., King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d at
681; Tadros v. Commissioner, 763 F.2d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 1985); Alta
Sierra Vista, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 367, 374, affd.
without published opinion 538 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1976); McCormick
v. Commissioner, supra at 141.
Petitioner relies on Sicari v. Commissioner, 136 F.3d 925
(2d Cir. 1998), vacating and remanding T.C. Memo. 1997-104, for
the proposition that by filing the Forms 4868, he gave clear and
concise notice to respondent of his change of address. We think
that petitioner's reliance on Sicari v. Commissioner, supra, is
misplaced.
3 It should be recalled that the taxpayer's signature is
not required on a Form 4868 and that a preparer may file a Form
4868 without knowledge of the taxpayer.
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