- 12 -
We have considered petitioner’s contentions that she advised
respondent of her Adele Street address in her January 1999 letter
and by telephone and conclude that she has not established those
facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
Finally, we are not persuaded that respondent knew or should
have known about the Adele Street address as a result of the
procedures pertaining to the mailing of the tax booklets for
1998, inasmuch as the undisputed evidence reflects that the
updated tapes were not returned to the IRS until the end of
February 1999. Similarly, petitioner’s filing of her 1998 return
reflecting her Adele Street address was too late to affect the
mailing of the notices of deficiency. Moreover, the fact that
respondent sent petitioner copies of the notices of deficiency in
April 1999 does not invalidate the February mailing, constitute a
new mailing, or enlarge the period for timely filing a petition
with this Court.
Although petitioner cannot pursue her case in this Court,
she is not without a remedy. In short, petitioner may pay the
tax, file a claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service,
and if the claim is denied, sue for a refund in the U.S. District
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011