- 16 -
“best address” to use was his Carnegie Mellon University address,
(3) gave no formal written notice to respondent of his change of
address, and (4) offered no evidence that respondent ever used or
acknowledged his change of address, we hold that respondent
committed no error, and in any event no error of a ministerial
nature, by mailing the notice of deficiency to the address on
petitioner’s most recently filed Federal income tax return.
In addition, even if petitioner had effected a change of
address, the evidence suggests that petitioner improperly refused
delivery of the notice of deficiency. Petitioner claims he did
not move to California until May 1995--long after the deficiency
notice was sent to him by certified mail on April 4, 1995, and
would have been delivered to him in the ordinary course, if
claimed by him. Respondent has submitted evidence that
petitioner was seeking to avoid receiving correspondence from
respondent. According to notes of respondent’s telephone calls
with petitioner on October 28, 1994 and November 16, 1994,
petitioner demanded that respondent stop sending him
correspondence regarding the deficiency. These telephone logs,
combined with proof that the certified letters were sent to
petitioner at a then-current address and were returned by the
Postal Service unclaimed, suggest that petitioner made a
conscious decision not to pick up from the Postal Service the
certified letter from respondent. Petitioner has not offered any
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