- 14 -
The opinions in Ward and Mulder are not controlling, and no
other Fifth Circuit case requires that we adopt the estate’s
position. Consistent with existing precedent, therefore, we hold
that respondent’s concession that he failed to send the notice of
deficiency to the estate’s last known address did not invalidate
the notice of deficiency in this case because respondent timely
mailed the notice of deficiency under section 6212(a), the estate
received actual notice of the determination of deficiency without
prejudicial delay, and the estate filed a timely petition to
contest the proposed deficiency. See Mulvania v. Commissioner,
81 T.C. 65, 68 (1983); see also Clodfelter v. Commissioner, 527
F.2d 754, 757 (9th Cir. 1975), affg. 57 T.C. 102 (1971); St.
Joseph Lease Capital Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-256.
We have considered the remaining arguments of both parties
for a result different from that reached herein and, to the
8(...continued)
notice of the deficiency and filed a timely petition. However,
the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Johnson v.
Commissioner, 611 F.2d 1015, 1018 (5th Cir. 1980), revg. T.C.
Memo. 1977-382, acknowledged in dicta that, while a valid notice
of deficiency ordinarily must be mailed to a taxpayer’s last
known address, an exception may apply in “the case where a
taxpayer has actually received the notice in some other manner.”
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit noted that mailing a
copy to the taxpayer’s attorney “would likely * * * [give the]
taxpayer notice of the asserted deficiency and thus an
opportunity to timely file a petition for redetermination.” Id.
at 1019-1020 n.7. The predicted result actually occurred in this
case where the estate’s attorney received a copy of the notice of
deficiency, apparently shared it with the estate, and the estate
filed a timely petition.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011