- 6 -
on August 17, 1998. Consequently, as to the taxable year 1994,
we shall dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction and strike
the allegations in the petition referring to that year on the
ground that respondent had not issued a valid notice of
deficiency for 1994 to petitioner prior to the filing of the
petition in this case.
On February 2, 1998, respondent mailed duplicate original
notices of deficiency for 1993 to petitioner at the P.O. Box 751
address (the address on petitioner's most recent return before
the mailing of the notice) and to Wallace and Company (the
address where respondent had corresponded with petitioner during
the examination). Although the phrase "last known address" is
not defined in the Internal Revenue Code or the regulations, we
have held that a taxpayer's last known address is the address
shown on his most recently filed return, absent clear and concise
notice of a change of address. Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
1019, 1035 (1988); see King v. Commissioner, supra at 681. 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.
There is no evidence in the record that petitioner notified
respondent that he wanted correspondence sent to any address
other than those used by respondent in mailing the notice of
deficiency. Considering all of the facts and circumstances, we
are satisfied that respondent mailed the notice of deficiency to
petitioner at his last known address.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011