- 8 -
address was not their mailing address for purposes of the notices
of deficiency.2
In an attempt to establish that Riley was their authorized
representative for purposes of receiving all of their
correspondence from the Commissioner for 1996, petitioners rely
upon a piece of evidence that includes an undated letter. In the
letter, respondent acknowledges that Riley is an authorized
representative for petitioners. The letter, however, does not
indicate the year or years for which Riley is petitioners’
authorized representative or the time that any such
representation began. Nor does the letter indicate that Riley is
petitioners’ authorized representative for purposes of receiving
all notices and other correspondence.
Nor have petitioners persuaded us that they should not be
treated for purposes of section 6330 as receiving the notices of
deficiency. Contrary to petitioners’ suggestion, the mere fact
that they never actually received a notice of deficiency for 1996
does not preclude the Court from concluding that the receipt
requirement of section 6330 was met.
In Sego v. Commissioner, supra, we held that the petitioning
wife was precluded from challenging her underlying tax liability
2 Whereas petitioners did file a Form 8822 with respondent
on or about August 2, 2001, changing their address from the
Lawrence address to the Hilltop address, the notices of
deficiency were mailed to them on June 2, 2000.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011