- 10 -
mailed to petitioner at his last known address unless petitioner
can demonstrate: (1) He provided respondent with clear and
concise notice of a change of address; or (2) prior to the
mailing of the notice of deficiency, respondent knew of a change
in petitioner's address and did not exercise due diligence in
ascertaining petitioner's correct address. See Abeles v.
Commissioner, supra; Keeton v. Commissioner, supra at 382; Alta
Sierra Vista, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 367, 374 (1974),
affd. without published opinion 538 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1976).
There is nothing in the record to suggest that petitioner
gave respondent clear and concise notice of any change of
address. Nor is there anything in the record to suggest that
respondent knew about such change of address. Indeed, the record
indicates that during the examination phase of this case,
respondent communicated with petitioner at the Stilwell address.
In view of the foregoing, we hold that the notice of
deficiency was valid because it was sent to petitioner at his
last known address. Accordingly, because petitioner did not file
6(...continued)
concern, expressed throughout this case, about the status of his
refund for that year. Petitioner has not suggested, much less
demonstrated, that he filed some other return for 1999 claiming a
refund for that year. However, assuming arguendo that petitioner
did not authorize the filing of an electronic return for 1999,
the fact remains that petitioner’s 1998 return lists the Stilwell
address, which would still constitute petitioner’s last known
address. See Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1035 (1988);
sec. 301.6212-2, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011