- 6 -
February 1993 and which is involved in this case, provides simply
that “notices and other written communications will be sent” to
the taxpayer’s designee. We have previously held that that
language is sufficient to render the address of the taxpayer’s
representative the “last known address” of the taxpayer. See
Honts v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-532. Under this
principle, the notice mailed to Mr. Christensen at the Airway
Avenue address, and received by him, was sent to petitioners’
last known address.
Petitioners contend that respondent should have mailed the
notice of deficiency to the Edinger Avenue address. We disagree.
As indicated above, the address shown on petitioners’ most
recently filed return serves as notice to respondent of
petitioners’ last known address unless respondent was given clear
and concise notification of a change in that address.
Accordingly, petitioners’ 1994 return, which was filed in October
of 1995, was the last filed return before the mailing of the
notice of deficiency for 1992. Petitioners’ 1995 return showing
the Edinger Avenue address was filed after the mailing of the
notice of deficiency by certified mail to the Blake Road address.
Petitioners’ contention that they provided a new address to
respondent’s Appeals Office orally in a telephone conversation
has not been proven. Petitioner husband testified to such a
conversation, but his testimony was rather vague. On the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011