- 7 -
(9th Cir. 1984); Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1032
(1988).
Because of the large number of tax returns filed with
respondent on or around April 15 and as a matter of “practical
operational necessity”, respondent is allowed, after receipt, a
reasonable period of time to process and to post to respondent’s
computer systems new addresses of taxpayers. Williams v.
Commissioner, 935 F.2d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir. 1991), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1989-439. Whether respondent exceeded a reasonable period
of time to process and to post new addresses involves a question
of fact. Id.
Petitioner contends: (1) That respondent’s May 17, 1999,
Levy Letter was not mailed to his last known address; (2) that he
did not receive the May 17, 1999, Levy Letter mailed to his
Desert Inn address; (3) that respondent’s May 17, 1999, Levy
Letter did not constitute proper notice of his right to a CDP
hearing with regard to the levy notice; and (4) that we therefore
should enjoin respondent’s proposed levy.
We disagree. Particularly in light of the fact that
petitioner’s 1998 Federal income tax return constituted an
incomplete return, a 32-day period did not exceed a reasonable
period of time for respondent to post petitioner’s Nightflower
address to respondent’s computer system. Rev. Proc. 90-18,
1990-1 C.B. 491, 494. Accordingly, respondent, in this case, was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011