- 14 -
respondent a letter indicating that he had moved to Beijing,
China. However, on October 13, 1995, petitioner filed his 1994
Federal income tax return using the Millbrae address.
Accordingly, we find that respondent sent the 30-day letter to
petitioner’s last known address in Millbrae, California.
Respondent was entitled to rely upon petitioner’s 1994 tax return
in order to determine petitioner’s last known address. Cf.
Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019 (1988) (Commissioner is
entitled to treat the address on the taxpayer’s most recent
return as the taxpayer’s last known address absent a clear and
concise notification of an address change).3
Consequently, we find that petitioner failed to request an
Appeals Office conference prior to filing a petition in the Tax
Court. Therefore, petitioner failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies, and he is not entitled to litigation
costs with regard to the 1993 and 1994 tax years.
Moreover, the position that respondent took in his answer
was substantially justified. When respondent filed his answer,
he did not have sufficient information to conclude that
3 Even if petitioner faxed, as he alleges, a letter to
respondent on May 28, 1996, indicating that his mailing address
was in Beijing, China, this letter did not constitute a timely
change of address for purpose of the 30-day letter mailed on the
following day. Cf. Rose v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-739
(tax return filed 45 days prior to the mailing of a notice of
deficiency did not constitute timely notice of change of
address).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011