Audrey Carlisle - Page 12




                                       - 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