- 7 - demonstrate: (1) She provided respondent with clear and concise notice of a change of address; or (2) prior to the mailing of the deficiency notice for 1998, respondent knew of a change in petitioner's address and did not exercise due diligence in ascertaining petitioner's correct address. See Abeles v. Commissioner, supra; Keeton v. Commissioner, supra at 382; Alta Sierra Vista, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 367, 374 (1974), affd. without published opinion 538 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1976). There is nothing in the record to suggest that petitioner gave respondent clear and concise notice of her change of address from the Grasonville address to the Baltimore address.3 Nor is there anything in the record to suggest that respondent knew about such change of address. Indeed, given the short interval between petitioner’s relocation in late November 1999 and the issuance of the deficiency notice for 1998 on January 19, 2000, there would have been limited opportunity for respondent to have learned about petitioner’s change of address. Moreover, we take 3 The fact that petitioner may have provided notification of her change of address to the U.S. Postal Service does not, in and of itself, mean that petitioner provided notification to respondent. See Adams v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-365 (the filing of a forwarding order with the Postal Service is not clear and concise notification to the Commissioner of the taxpayer’s change of address), affd. without published opinion sub nom. Miller v. Commissioner, 61 F.3d 916 (10th Cir. 1995). In other words, a taxpayer who does not notify the Commissioner of his or her change of address but merely relies on the Postal Service to forward mail bears the risk of any failure of the Postal Service to properly forward such mail. Id.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011