- 14 -
On his 1988 tax return, petitioner provided respondent the
Kentucky address. Petitioner failed to file a 1989 or 1990 tax
return or otherwise to inform respondent of a new address. After
the 1990 notice of deficiency was returned to respondent in
December 1992 marked “Not Deliverable”, respondent learned in
mid-January 1993 through U.S. Postal Service and credit bureau
information that a Curtis McIntosh lived at the Ohio address.
Petitioner failed to respond to respondent’s request, mailed to
the Ohio address, asking him to verify that this was his new
address.
In McIntosh v. United States, supra at 98-6510, the District
Court decided, on the basis of essentially these facts, that
respondent had exercised due diligence in attempting to ascertain
petitioner’s last known address for purposes of mailing the 1990
notice of deficiency. The District Court first concluded that
under relevant caselaw the IRS’s duty of diligence extended only
to the time that the 1990 notice of deficiency was mailed.
Applying that standard, the District Court held that “the only
reasonable conclusion” was that the IRS satisfied its duty,
inasmuch as petitioner had failed to notify the IRS that he had
moved from the Kentucky address. Id. Alternatively, the
District Court held that the same result would obtain even if the
IRS’s duty of diligence extended beyond the mailing of the notice
of deficiency. Noting that petitioner had failed to respond to
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011