Thomas W. Hunter, Jr. - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          sent to the appropriate IRS service center, as the IRS required,            
          see Rev. Proc. 90-18, sec. 4.02, 1990-1 C.B. 491, 492, and it               
          definitely showed a different address.5                                     
               Respondent chose not to file a reply brief and so missed his           
          chance to grapple with Rizzo and Johnson.  Instead, he argues               
          that petitioner’s proposed test leaves out a critical fourth                
          element:  An express statement of intent by a taxpayer that his             
          address of record be changed to his new address.  See Rev. Proc.            
          90-18, sec. 5.04(1), 1990-1 C.B. at 494.6  This failure, which              
          respondent strongly suggests could easily have been cured by                
          using Form 8852--the IRS’s official change-of-address form--in              
          his view vitiates petitioner’s attempt to use a Form 2848 to                
          effect a change of address.                                                 
               Respondent finds this fourth element not in any case                   
          involving powers of attorney, but in other cases stating                    
          seemingly broad principles of “last known address” law.  He                 
          begins with Alta Sierra Vista v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 367, 374             
          (1974), a case where we noted that “Administrative realities                


               5 Respondent suggests that petitioner could have given the             
          form to the revenue agent working on the audit.  This is true,              
          but hardly decisive--respondent’s own procedure allows a taxpayer           
          to mail the form to the Service Center that received his last               
          return.                                                                     
               6 Note that we have held that revenue procedures generally,            
          and Rev. Proc. 90-18, supra, in particular, do not bind this                
          Court.  Westphal v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-599.                      





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011