- 7 -
petitioner filed the petition with the Court in an envelope
bearing a postmark of October 2, 2001. Accordingly, the Court
received and filed the petition, which was postmarked more than
90 days after the mailing of the notice of deficiency for 1997.
Thus, the issue is whether respondent sent the notice of
deficiency for 1997 to petitioner’s last known address.
A taxpayer can have only one last known address on the date
that a notice of deficiency is issued. Abeles v. Commissioner,
supra at 1030. What knowledge the Commissioner has acquired
concerning the taxpayer’s address is a question of fact. King v.
Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 678, 679 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. 88
T.C. 1042 (1987). The Commissioner must exercise reasonable
diligence in ascertaining the taxpayer’s correct address;
however, he is entitled to treat the address appearing on a
taxpayer’s return as the last known address in the absence of
clear and concise notification from the taxpayer directing the
Commissioner to use a different address. Id.; Abeles v.
Commissioner, supra at 1035. A subsequently filed tax return
with a new address may give the Commissioner notice of a change
of address. King v. Commissioner, supra at 679, 680.
“Correspondence bearing an address different from that on the
most recent return does not, by itself, constitute clear and
concise notice. * * * In order to supplant the address on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011