Michael M. Dew - Page 6

                                        - 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