- 5 -
petitioners to anticipate the statutory notice. She stated that
she repeatedly spoke with petitioner Anthony Sicari (petitioner)
about the importance of the statutory notice and repeatedly
emphasized that he should call her as soon as he received it.
According to her, petitioner several times denied receiving the
statutory notice and assured her that he would call her as soon
as he received it.
Petitioner confirmed the accountant's testimony and denied
receiving the statutory notice of deficiency until June 1995,
when he met with an Internal Revenue agent to discuss an
unrelated matter. Petitioner Esther Sicari also stated that she
never had failed to accept certified mail or pick up such mail in
response to a notice. Petitioners commenced the present action
on June 30, 1995, by filing a petition for redetermination of the
deficiencies, and thereafter respondent filed the motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Discussion
The opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
is that in this case respondent did not satisfy the requirements
of section 6212 for mailing of a notice of deficiency to the
taxpayer's last known address by certified or registered mail.
Nevertheless, as the Court of Appeals states, the notice here
would be considered valid if the taxpayers received actual notice
of the deficiencies and were not prejudiced in timely filing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011