- 8 -
printed next to the Aspen address,6 but respondent concedes that
he did not mail the notice to the Wroxton Road address.
Respondent mailed the notice only to one coexecutrix, Ms.
Norquist, at the Aspen address. According to the estate,
respondent’s failure to mail the notice to the Wroxton Road
address constituted “a fundamental failure to comply with Section
6212(a).”
Respondent contends that his mailing, while flawed, was
sufficient on the facts involved here to comply with section
6212(a). Respondent argues that section 6212(a) requires a
mailing to the estate which either was sent to the estate’s last
known address or, if sent to an incorrect address, was actually
received by the estate in sufficient time to meet the deadline
for filing a petition in this Court. Respondent contends that
the latter requirement was satisfied because the estate actually
filed a petition with this Court prior to the expiration of the
filing period. We agree with respondent.
The purpose of the mailing under section 6212 is to provide
the taxpayer with notice and an opportunity to petition the Court
to challenge the Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency.
Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. at 53; Reddock v. Commissioner,
supra at 25; Lifter v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 818, 820 (1973);
6Respondent’s use of the Aspen address for Ms. Norquist and
the Wroxton Road address for Mrs. Stamey reflected the
fiduciaries’ addresses as they appeared on the estate tax return.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011