- 9 -
Petitioners also suggest that respondent’s error or delay
caused them not to receive their notice of deficiency and thus to
be denied their right to petition this Court regarding
respondent’s determination of their tax liability. We do not
believe, however, that the interest which petitioners seek to
have abated was attributable to ministerial errors or delays in
respondent’s processing their unclaimed statutory notice. It is
undisputed that the notice of deficiency was mailed to
petitioners’ last known address. Respondent was under no
statutory obligation to remail a notice of deficiency that had
been properly mailed to a taxpayer and returned unclaimed. See
King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. 88
T.C. 1042 (1987); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 33 (1989).
As in effect when the notice of deficiency was issued in
this case, the Internal Revenue Manual directs that an unclaimed
notice of deficiency should be returned to the Appeals officer
and states that “if the appeals officer wishes” and there is
enough time remaining before the period of limitations runs, the
Appeals officer may direct additional checks of respondent’s
computer files to verify the taxpayer’s last known address.
8 Appeals, Internal Revenue Manual (CCH), sec. 363(2), at
8114-20. The Internal Revenue Manual states:
If, after checking all possible sources, another address
cannot be found, and the appeals officer determines that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011