Evelyn Perkins - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known address, the relevant                 
          inquiry “pertains to * * * [the Commissioner’s] knowledge rather            
          than to what may in fact be the taxpayer's most current address.”           
          Frieling v. Commissioner, supra at 49.                                      
               Respondent mailed the notice of deficiency to the address              
          listed on petitioner's 2000 return--the last return filed by                
          petitioner prior to the mailing of the notice on September 19,              
          2001.  Consequently, the notice of deficiency was mailed to                 
          petitioner at her last known address unless petitioner can                  
          demonstrate: (1) She 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 any change of address.4   Finally, we                 


               4  The fact that petitioner’s residence may have been                  
          renumbered for purposes of the “911” emergency system does not,             
          in and of itself, constitute notice to respondent that                      
          petitioner’s address may have changed.  This is particularly true           
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011