- 9 -
Director in Baltimore. Cf. Westphal v. Commissioner, supra (oral
notice to examining agent was effective to constitute a change of
address).
Petitioner further contends that respondent did not exercise
due diligence in determining his correct address. It is well
settled that, where the Commissioner is aware, before issuing a
notice of deficiency, that the address he intends to use is no
longer the taxpayer's correct address, the Commissioner is
required to exercise reasonable diligence in attempting to
ascertain the taxpayer's correct address. See King v.
Commissioner, supra at 681 n.8; Crawford v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1996-460; Stroud v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-666.
There is no evidence in the record that respondent was
aware, either before or immediately after the mailing of the
notice of deficiency, that the Lightning View address was not
petitioner's correct address. Because of the passage of time, we
do not have the benefit of reviewing the contents of respondent's
administrative file. However, on the basis of a review of the
record herein, we are satisfied that respondent was not put on
notice that petitioner was no longer residing at the Lightning
View address. Moreover, the notice was returned to respondent
marked "Unclaimed" as opposed to "Addressee Unknown",
"Insufficient Address" or "Unable to Forward". Under the
circumstances, respondent was justified in believing that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011