- 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