- 15 -
the IRS’s address verification request sent to him at the Ohio
address, the District Court concluded: “There is no probative
evidence that the IRS had actual notice” of petitioner’s Ohio
address, even though respondent had received an Ohio address
through a credit bureau and a postal tracer. Id. The District
Court stated:
Accepting as true plaintiff’s allegation that he did
not receive the request for verification, it was
reasonable for the IRS to forego changing plaintiff’s
address on the master file until after other
verification had been obtained. Under these
circumstances, it must be held that the IRS exercised
reasonable care and diligence in ascertaining
plaintiff’s correct address subsequent to the mailing
of the Notice of Deficiency. The IRS cannot be held to
have shirked its duty by failing to mail the notice a
second time to an address which plaintiff did not
provide to the IRS and which he did not verify after
being extended the opportunity to do so. Accordingly,
the Court finds that the only reasonable conclusion is
that the IRS complied with 26 U.S.C. section 6212 prior
to making its assessment for that year. [Id.; fn. ref.
omitted.]
On April 26, 1993, respondent mailed notice and demand to
petitioner at the Kentucky address. It is undisputed that this
notice and demand was timely if mailed to petitioner’s last known
address. The Appeals Office relied upon and adopted the District
Court’s reasoning to determine that the notice and demand was
sent to petitioner’s last known address. On brief, petitioner
contends that the Appeals officer’s action in this regard was an
abuse of discretion because “The facts that existed at the time
of mailing the Notice of Deficiency did not exist at the time of
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