Estate of Isabelle N. Greenwood, Deceased, Donna Norquist and Christine N. Stamey, Independent Co-Executrixes - Page 14

                                       - 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                 

          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