Fletcher H. Hyler - Page 21

                                        - 21 -                                        
          Virginia, address.  Stone neglected to advise petitioner of                 
          receipt of that notice.  Petitioner seeks to disavow some                   
          communications sent to Stone.  His inconsistent positions                   
          concerning her authority and her misrepresentations of her                  
          capacity are not attributable to respondent.  See Lefebvre v.               
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-202, affd. 758 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir.            
          1985).  Any confusion was created by petitioner and his                     
          representative, and their communications cannot be characterized            
          as clear and concise.                                                       
               We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contentions that, on                
          other occasions, he or Stone had provided clear and concise                 
          notification of his new Portola Valley address before the 1995              
          and 1997 deficiency notices were mailed.  Those occasions                   
          involved persons who were either with the Office of the Taxpayer            
          Advocate, the Special Procedures Office, or the Collection                  
          Division.  Petitioner’s use of a new address in dealings with               
          persons who were not involved with the issuing of deficiency                
          notices did not require them to compare the address petitioner              
          used to the last known address otherwise on file.  United States            
          v. Zolla, 724 F.2d at 811; see also Rev. Proc. 90-18, 1990-1 C.B.           
               Another notification of a new address, petitioner argues,              
          came when IRS received an unsigned Form 4868 seeking an automatic           
          extension of time within which petitioner might file his 1998               

Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011