- 13 -
address. 1 Audit, Internal Revenue Manual (CCH), sec.
4243.2(6)(b) (as in effect January 1999) (if mail undeliverable,
IRS should “check all possible sources in the case files”).8
Instead, the stipulated facts show no effort to redeliver the
notices even after respondent began using petitioner’s
Hendersonville address in correspondence, and while he continued
to meet with petitioner’s accountants in settlement talks for
several years. The caselaw calls this evidence of lack of
reasonable care and due diligence. See Pyo, 83 T.C. at 638
(corresponding with taxpayers at new address suggests knowledge
of new address); Honts, T.C. Memo. 1995-532 (Commissioner should
verify address if in regular contact with taxpayer’s
representative). And we ourselves have stressed that the
Commissioner can protect himself from last-known-address problems
by sending copies to each possible address. Elgart v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-379; Karosen v Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1983-540. No such steps are on record here, even though
petitioner had asked on his Form 2848 for copies of all
correspondence to go to two of his accountants.
8 Respondent points out that there is no record of the third
notice’s being returned. Because we find that respondent failed
to issue any of these notices to petitioner’s last known address,
the ambiguity surrounding the ultimate fate of this one notice is
irrelevant. Respondent also argues that the house number on the
Form 2848 was incorrectly listed as 2200, rather than 2220. This
would only be relevant if respondent had used it to address the
notices of deficiency at issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011