- 6 -
copy of Notice 1214, which is attached to the copy of the notices
mailed to the Willow address. Petitioners draw from this fact
that Notice 1214 was mailed only to the Willow address. Contrary
to petitioners’ assertion, the mere fact that respondent’s file
contains only one copy of Notice 1214 does not mean that
respondent sent only one copy of that notice to them. Certain of
respondent’s employees testified credibly that only one copy of
Notice 1214 is kept in the file of a taxpayer (or taxpayers in
the case of a joint return), notwithstanding the number of copies
of that notice that are actually sent to the taxpayer(s). We
conclude and hold that the notices of deficiency mailed to
petitioners’ last known address were valid. In so concluding, we
reject without further discussion petitioners’ assertion that all
information required by section 6212(a) must be included on the
face of the notice of deficiency in order to comply with that
section.
Petitioners argue alternatively that their petition to this
Court was timely because they filed the lawsuit in the District
Court within the applicable 90-day period. We disagree. The
fact that a taxpayer files a lawsuit in a Federal District Court
challenging a notice of deficiency does not mean that a later
petition to this Court is considered filed as of the earlier
filing in District Court. See Brave v. Commissioner, 65 T.C.
1001 (1976); see also exhibit 3 (Notice of deficiency issued to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011