- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011