- 4 -
contested the key facts and documents.1
Discussion
Our jurisdiction to redetermine deficiencies exists only
when the Commissioner issues a notice of deficiency and a
taxpayer files a timely petition to redetermine that deficiency.
Rule 13(a),(c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989);
Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). The
Internal Revenue Code says that a notice of deficiency shall be
“sufficient” if “mailed to the taxpayer at his last known
address.” Sec. 6212(b)(1).2 There is no statutory definition of
“last known address,” and the resulting gap has been filled with
a “plethora of caselaw decided by this and other courts.” Marks
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-575, affd. 947 F.2d 983 (D.C.
Cir. 1991).3
In Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1035 (1988), we
1 The most important fact that the parties did not stipulate
is whether petitioner ever received a notice of deficiency.
Petitioner testified at the short hearing held before the case
was submitted that he never had. Respondent objected to the
proposed finding of fact citing that testimony, but only by
characterizing the testimony as “self-serving.” On this crucial
point, we agree with petitioner--noting especially that
respondent, in his own motion to dismiss, asserted only that he
sent three notices of deficiency to petitioner--the three
concededly sent to petitioner’s old address in Jan. 1999.
2 Subsequent section references are all to the Internal
Revenue Code.
3 Respondent has issued a regulation, sec. 301.6212-2,
Proced. & Admin. Regs., defining “last known address.” The
regulation’s effective date, however, is Jan. 29, 2001, after the
events giving birth to these motions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011