- 6 -
Petitioners' position is summarized by the following
excerpt from petitioners' supplemental statement under Rule
50(c):
Petitioners have never disputed the fact that the
Notice of Deficiency was sent to their residence
address. Petitioners' contention, however, is that a
copy of the Notice should also have been sent to
Mr. White pursuant to the Form 2848 filed with the
IRS. The prejudice and the delay comes from the fact
that Petitioners’ having filed a valid Form 2848
expected Mr. White to receive the Notice of Deficiency
and therefore could not be expected to take their own
steps to get a copy to him. By the time it was
discovered that Mr. White did not have a copy,
Petitioners no longer had their copy either.
Therefore, Petitioners and Mr. White attempted to
obtain another copy and failing that attempted to
remember the date for the 90 day filing deadline.
Respondent counters that the notice of deficiency is valid
because petitioners received the notice shortly after it was
mailed.
Normally, a taxpayer's last known address is the address
shown on the taxpayer's most recently filed return, absent clear
and concise notice of a change of address. See Abeles v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1035 (1988). Where a taxpayer has
executed a Form 2848 and elects to have the Commissioner send
original notices and other written communications to the
attorney-in-fact, we have held that a taxpayer's last known
address is the address of his attorney-in-fact. See Reddock v.
Commissioner, 72 T.C. 21, 24 (1979); Maranto v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1999-266. However, respondent's failure to mail a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011