- 16 -
Cir. 1992), affg. in part, revg. in part, and remanding T.C.
Memo. 1991-144. Respondent ordinarily takes a position in an
administrative proceeding when he issues a statutory notice of
deficiency, see sec. 7430(c)(7)(B); in a Court proceeding,
respondent takes a position when he files an answer to a
petition, Huffman v. Commissioner, supra.
In the case at hand, the position we scrutinize against the
substantial justification standard, in both the administrative
and Court proceedings, is whether the notices of deficiency were
mailed to petitioner’s last known address.
Respondent first took the position that the notices of
deficiency were sent to petitioner’s last known address when he
mailed the notices. Sec. 7430(c)(7)(B). Petitioner contends in
her motion papers that the notices of deficiency were sent to
incorrect or fictitious addresses.
Petitioner states that the 451 E. Nellis address, to which
respondent mailed notices of deficiency for 1987, 1988, and 1991,
was incorrect on two counts. First, according to petitioner,
there is no E. Nellis in Las Vegas, the street petitioner lived
on was 451 N. Nellis. Second, the unit on the address used by
respondent, C2134, was incorrect; petitioner lived in unit 01094.
Petitioner also points out that the 2850 Needles Highway
address, to which respondent mailed the 1992, 1993, and 1994
notices, was incorrect. According to petitioner, respondent used
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011