John L. and Lisa K. Erickson - Page 7




                                       - 7 -                                          
          notice of deficiency to the taxpayer's attorney-in-fact does not            
          necessarily render the notice invalid.  An otherwise erroneously            
          addressed notice of deficiency remains valid under section                  
          6212(a) if the taxpayer actually receives the notice in                     
          sufficient time to permit the taxpayer, without prejudice, to               
          file a timely petition for redetermination.  See Looper v.                  
          Commissioner, 73 T.C. 690, 697 (1980); Payne v. Commissioner,               
          T.C. Memo. 1992-22; see also Patmon & Young Professional Corp.              
          v. Commissioner, 55 F.3d 216, 217 (6th Cir. 1995), affg. T.C.               
          Memo. 1993-143.                                                             
               In Looper v. Commissioner, supra at 699, we held that                  
          whether a taxpayer has been prejudiced by an improperly                     
          addressed notice of deficiency is a question of fact.  We                   
          further held that the taxpayer's failure to file a timely                   
          petition, while bearing heavily on the question of prejudice, is            
          only one of several factors that the Court must consider in                 
          deciding the point.  See id.                                                
               Considering all of the facts and circumstances, we conclude            
          that respondent's failure to mail the notice of deficiency to               
          White did not result in cognizable prejudice to petitioners.                
          The cause of late filing was petitioners' misplacing the notice             
          and faulty recollection of the filing deadline.  Respondent’s               
          failure to send the notice to White did not prevent petitioners’            
          receipt of actual notice.                                                   






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011