- 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 aPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011