- 14 -
would have filed a petition for review with the Tax Court, would
have obtained an earlier determination of his deficiency, and
thereby could have avoided interest accruing on the deficiency
from the time the Tax Court would have ruled until the deficiency
was finally agreed upon.
Initially, we note that petitioner’s claim is flawed because
he has failed to show the specific period of time over which
interest should be abated as a result of this claimed “error or
delay.” See Donovan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-220.
Moreover, even ignoring this structural flaw, petitioner has
failed to establish that respondent committed any error, let
alone a ministerial one, in sending the notice of deficiency to
the address shown on his tax return, rather than to his school
address as he alleges he orally requested.
Respondent was required to mail the notice of deficiency to
petitioner’s “last known address.” Sec. 6212(b)(1). Neither
section 6212 nor the regulations promulgated thereunder and in
effect when the notice of deficiency was mailed7 define a
taxpayer's "last known address." We have defined it as the
address to which, in light of all the facts and circumstances,
respondent reasonably believed the taxpayer wished the notice of
7Sec. 301.6212-2, Proced. & Admin. Regs, promulgated on Jan.
11, 2001, defines “last known address.” This new regulation was
not in effect when the notice of deficiency in the case at hand
was mailed, and by its terms is effective only to mailings on and
after Jan. 29, 2001. Sec. 301.6212-2(d), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011