- 16 -
mailing the Notice and Demand.” As just described, however, the
basis of the District Court’s decision was not limited to the
facts that existed at the time of the mailing of the notice of
deficiency. Rather, as an alternative basis for its holding, the
District Court also considered facts arising after the mailing of
the notice of deficiency (i.e., the return of the notice of
deficiency as undeliverable, the IRS’s attempts at address
verification through credit bureau contacts and postal tracers,
and petitioner’s failure to respond to the IRS’s address
verification request). Taking into account these additional
facts, the District Court decided that the “only reasonable
conclusion” is that the IRS satisfied its duty of diligence with
respect to the notice of deficiency. McIntosh v. United States,
supra at 98-6510.
In its opinion, the District Court stated:
There is an issue as to whether the IRS complied
with the statutory requirements for issuing a Notice
and Demand for 1990 based on the government testimony
presented at the hearing that the IRS sent notices of
demand for payment for 1990 to the * * * [Kentucky
address] after the Notice of Deficiency sent to that
same address had been returned as undeliverable. * * *
[Id. at 98-6511.]
Ultimately, however, the District Court did not decide this
issue, concluding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over
the relief sought with respect to this matter.6 Id.
6 Petitioner contends that materials in the administrative
(continued...)
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