Curtis J.L. McIntosh - Page 15

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011