- 6 -
the notice of deficiency. Finally, respondent contends that,
even though petitioners did not receive the notice of deficiency
as mailed, “petitioners had actual oral notice that a deficiency
in income tax had been proposed against them for the 1995 income
tax year.”
Petitioners contend they never received the notice of
deficiency until, after many efforts over many months, they
received a copy of the notice of deficiency attached to a letter
from respondent’s Taxpayer Advocate office. In their written
objection to respondent’s motion, petitioners ask that we hold
that their petition was timely filed and that this Court has
jurisdiction of their case.
In their opening statement at the evidentiary hearing on
respondent’s motion, petitioners contend that, because of their
efforts to get a copy of the notice of deficiency and
respondent’s lack of cooperation, the notice of deficiency should
be treated as having been mailed on May 13, 1998, the date on the
letter from respondent’s Taxpayer Advocate which included a copy
of the notice of deficiency; under these circumstances,
petitioners point out, their petition was timely filed. In
addition, petitioners contend that respondent’s addition of three
digits to the ZIP Code of petitioners’ correct address may have
interfered with their receipt of the notice of deficiency.
On brief, petitioners rest primarily on the contention that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011