- 12 -
Respondent’s position is essentially that it is up to
taxpayers to flag change-of-address information in a way so
obvious as to be immune from occasional bureaucratic
irregularities. But the minimal burden to the IRS must be
balanced against the potentially serious consequences for
taxpayers who rely on the IRS to process in a businesslike way
the information that it receives. The Tadros decision itself
recognized that the IRS has an “obligation” to “exercise
reasonable care in determining an address.” Tadros, 763 F.2d at
91-92. And as we announced in Abeles:
the IRS’ computer system was available to respondent’s
agent responsible for mailing the notice of deficiency,
and * * * the system would have reflected the [correct
address] had such agent caused a computer search of
petitioner’s TIN.
Abeles at 1034.7 In short, the IRS should not “ignore that which
it obviously knows.” United States v. Bell, 183 Bankr. 650, 653
(S.D. Fla. 1995).
Respondent’s failure to act on what he knew continued even
after the notices were returned as “unclaimed”. Respondent’s own
manual suggests that he should have kept trying to find the right
7 The record in this case contains scant information on the
procedures and database capabilities of respondent. We are
guided, however, by the stipulation of the parties that the Form
2848 was processed on Nov. 19, 1998; and by Rev. Proc. 90-18,
which indicates that the IRS requires 45 days to process address
information. The 45-day period, even counting from the time the
Form 2848 was filed, would have ended well before Jan. 28, 1998–-
the date that the IRS sent out the notices of deficiency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011