- 17 - As far as the record shows, the circumstances as of the date respondent sent the notice and demand to the Kentucky address were essentially unchanged from the circumstances considered by the District Court in holding that the “the only reasonable conclusion” was that respondent had sent the 1990 notice of deficiency to petitioner’s last known address in Kentucky and had not breached any duty of diligence by failing to resend it to the Ohio address. Id. at 98-6510. In particular, the record does not suggest that before mailing the notice and demand to the Kentucky address respondent had received any additional information from petitioner or from any other source that would support a conclusion that respondent erred in failing to mail the notice and demand to the Ohio address which petitioner had not provided to respondent and which petitioner did not verify after being extended the opportunity to do so. Accordingly, on the instant record, we conclude, consistent with the District 6(...continued) file show that the Appeals officer assumed, incorrectly, that the District Court had found that the notice and demand, as well as the 1990 notice of deficiency, was mailed to petitioner’s last known address. No such mistake is manifest in the notice of determination itself or the attachment thereto, which refers simply to petitioner’s failure to cooperate in acknowledging his new address as contributing to the lack of his current address in the IRS files. But regardless of whether the notice of determination was predicated in part on this alleged misreading of the District Court’s opinion, we conclude, as explained in the text above, that timely notice and demand was sent to petitioner’s last known address.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