- 8 - correct address. See Abeles v. Commissioner, supra; Keeton v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 377, 382 (1980); Alta Sierra Vista, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 367, 374 (1974), affd. without published opinion 538 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1976); Perkins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-174. Petitioner has failed to show that she provided clear and concise notification of a change from the Roydon Drive address. As to petitioner’s contention that respondent should have used the address listed on the Forms W-2 for 1989, we stated in Farnham v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-642, that a requirement that the Commissioner use addresses shown on such documents: would not only impose an unreasonable administrative burden on respondent to record every address for every taxpayer, but * * * would cause uncertainty by requiring respondent to use an address which the taxpayer did not communicate to him and which the taxpayer did not clearly tell respondent to use. * * * Id. See also Stroupe v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-380; Thiele v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-33. Another question in this case is whether the IRS should have exercised diligence and located an additional address for petitioner after the statutory notice of deficiency was returned undelivered. Whether the Commissioner has exercised reasonable care and diligence is a question of fact. Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 49 (1983). The relevant facts are those known before the notice of deficiency was mailed, such as return of letters sent to the taxpayer on earlier dates. SeePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011