- 10 -
opportunity to petition this Court to redetermine the deficiency.
See, e.g., Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983);
Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 53 (1983). If the taxpayer
files a timely petition (Frieling), or receives the notice of
deficiency early enough to file a timely petition, even if the
taxpayer does not file a timely petition (Mulvania), then the
notice of deficiency has satisfied these requirements.
In addition, the statute provides that the mailing of a
notice of deficiency to a taxpayer’s last known address, within
the meaning of section 6212(b)(1), is a safe harbor assuring
respondent that the notice is valid for purposes of section
6212(a), even if the notice is not received by the taxpayer
before the 90-day petition period has run. See DeWelles v.
United States, 378 F.2d at 40; Zenco Engineering Corp. v.
Commissioner, 75 T.C. 318, 321-322 (1980), affd. without
published opinion 673 F.2d 1332 (7th Cir. 1981).
In the instant case, the parties have stipulated that
petitioners did not receive the notice of deficiency that was
mailed on October 22, 1997. Petitioners finally received a copy
of this notice of deficiency on May 17, 1998, long after the
expiration of the 90-day petition period.
The parties’ stipulations make it clear, and we have found,
that the 9-digit ZIP Code address was petitioners’ last known
address. The address used by respondent for the notice of
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