- 12 -
notice of deficiency.
In Hoffenberg v. Commissioner, 905 F.2d 665 (2d Cir. 1990),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-676, in addressing the deficiency notice,
the Commissioner added “c/o Jessie Vogel, Esq.”, to the address
that the taxpayer had last reported to the IRS. We held that the
Commissioner mailed the notice to the taxpayer at his “last known
address”, finding that the addition of “c/o Jessie Vogel, Esq.”
to the address on the notice of deficiency was mere surplusage
having no effect on its proper mailing or delivery.
Accordingly, consistent with our precedents,6 we hold, for
respondent, that respondent mailed the notice of deficiency by
certified mail on October 22, 1997, to petitioners at their last
known address, within the meaning of section 6212(b)(1).
C. Other Contentions
1. Notice of Deficiency Not Sent
At the end of the evidentiary hearing, the Court directed
the parties to file one round of briefs, respondent opening and
petitioners answering. In petitioners’ answering brief they
raise for the first time the contention that respondent failed to
demonstrate that the notice of deficiency was mailed to
6To the same effect are Pickering v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1998-142; Nationwide Power Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-485; Iacino v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-111;
Watkins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-6; Davis v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-473; Greenstein v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1990-405; compare Wilson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1997-515; Violette v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-173.
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