- 13 -
In Sicari, the taxpayers never moved, but the Postal Service
refined the taxpayers' address twice within a period of 1 year.
Although the Court of Appeals noted that the taxpayers had used
the refined address on requests for extension filed with the
Commissioner prior to the mailing of the notice of deficiency,
this was not the primary basis of the Court of Appeals' holding
that the Commissioner had not acted with the requisite reasonable
diligence. Rather, the Court of Appeals based its holding on the
following circumstances, all of which occurred before the mailing
of the notice of deficiency: The taxpayer used the refined
address on a petition filed in bankruptcy proceedings; the
collection division of the IRS received prompt notice of the
bankruptcy filing and entered the refined address in one of the
Commissioner's computer databases; and the collection division
proceeded to use the refined address in correspondence with the
taxpayers and on proof of claim forms filed against the taxpayer
in bankruptcy. It was only in light of such "extraordinary
circumstances" and "on the precise facts of th[e] case" that the
Court of Appeals held that the deficiency notice had not been
mailed to the taxpayers' last known address. Id. at 926.
Because such circumstances are not present in the instant case,
we are not persuaded by petitioner's contention that by filing
Forms 4868 he gave respondent clear and concise notice of a
change of address.
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