- 13 - mail to the same address. Id. at 209-210. The taxpayer did not receive the notice of deficiency and did not learn of the deficiency until the 90-day period for petitioning this Court had expired. Id. at 210. As in Ward v. Commissioner, supra, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Commissioner had failed to exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining the taxpayer’s last known address. Mulder v. Commissioner, supra at 212. According to the Court of Appeals, the returned, undeliverable extension requests should have put the Commissioner on notice that the taxpayer’s address in the computer was incorrect. Id. The Court of Appeals again held that the notice of deficiency was invalid under section 6212. Id. at 210-211. The opinions in Ward and Mulder do not compel a conclusion that the notice of deficiency in this case was invalid because the cases involved materially different facts and are distinguishable from this case. The taxpayers in Ward and Mulder did not receive actual notice of the deficiency and clearly experienced prejudicial delay in filing a timely petition to challenge the deficiency. In contrast, the estate received actual notice of the deficiency and filed a timely petition in this Court.8 8The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has not decided a last known address case in which the taxpayers had actual (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011