- 7 -
named in the May 25, 1999, and November 19, 2001, powers of
attorney (Forms 2848).
Based on the above uncontested facts, the estate contends
that respondent failed to mail the notice of deficiency to the
taxpayer in order to satisfy section 6212 and that, therefore,
the notice of deficiency is invalid, depriving this Court of
jurisdiction over this matter. The estate also contends that
based on two opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, which the estate asserts are controlling,
respondent’s failure to mail the notice to the taxpayer’s last
known address invalidated the notice. We address the estate’s
arguments below.
A. The Fiduciaries’ Address
Upon filing the notice concerning fiduciary relationship,
Ms. Norquist and Mrs. Stamey assumed the rights and duties of the
decedent for estate tax purposes. Sec. 6903(a); Estate of
McElroy v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 509, 512 (1984). The notice
identified the fiduciaries’ address as the Wroxton Road address.
Reddock v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 21, 24 (1979). Respondent
concedes that the Wroxton Road address was the estate’s last
known address and that he did not mail the notice to that
address.
B. Validity of the Notice
The Wroxton Road address appeared on the face of the notice,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011