- 7 -
Here, the envelope with its contents, i.e., the notice of
deficiency for 1990 and 1991, was returned unclaimed to respondent.
Thus, there is no dispute that petitioners did not actually receive
the notice of deficiency.
In the context of a section 6330 proceeding, we have held that
taxpayers cannot defeat actual receipt by deliberately refusing
delivery of a notice of deficiency. Sego v. Commissioner, supra;
accord Ashley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-286; Carey v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-209; Hochschild v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-195; Baxter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-300. In
this case, respondent mailed, by certified mail, a notice of
deficiency to petitioners at their last known address, the 80 North
Star Trail address. Petitioners did not actually receive the
notice because it was returned to the IRS after one attempted
delivery by the USPS.
In Sego v. Commissioner, supra, we held that the taxpayer was
precluded from challenging her underlying tax liability under
section 6330 even though she did not actually receive a notice of
deficiency. We did so on the basis of Erhard v. Commissioner, 87
F.3d 273 (9th Cir. 1996), affg. T.C. Memo. 1994-344, and Patmon &
Young Profl. Corp. v. Commissioner, 55 F.3d 216, 218 (6th Cir.
1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-143, wherein we held that the conduct
4(...continued)
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989), affd. without published
opinion 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991); Shelton v. Commissioner, 63
T.C. 193 (1974).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011