-6-
receive a notice of deficiency for 1985, he would be precluded
from challenging his underlying tax liability for that year. We
need not and do not decide that issue. We believe it reasonable
under the facts herein for the Commissioner to have sent the
notice of deficiency to the address that petitioner gave to the
Court in his case at docket No. 13936-93. Our Rules require that
an individual, such as petitioner, include on his petition his
“name and legal residence” and “mailing address”. Rule 34(b)(1).
That Rule requires that those items be stated as of the date of
the filing of the petition. In addition, our Rules require that
such an individual promptly notify the Court of any change in his
or her mailing address. Rule 21(b)(4). We conclude that it was
reasonable for respondent to have relied for purposes of issuing
the 1985 notice of deficiency on the address set forth in the
Court’s records.
Assuming arguendo that petitioner did not receive that
notice of deficiency and thus was entitled to challenge his
underlying tax liability for that year, he chose not to do so.
The record clearly establishes that the Appeals officer attempted
to discuss with petitioner at the hearing his underlying tax
liability for 1985, and that petitioner refused to answer any
questions or provide any information with respect to that line of
3(...continued)
respect thereto and stipulated a final decision establishing his
liability for 1986.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011