- 9 -
Mulder v. Commissioner, 855 F.2d 208 (5th Cir. 1988), revg. T.C.
Memo. 1987-363. In Pomeroy v. United States, 864 F.2d 1191, 1195
(5th Cir. 1989), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
stated: "The relevant statutes simply require that the
deficiency notice be mailed to the taxpayer's last known address,
not that it be received." The Code does not require remailing
the notice, and nothing in the statute suggests that respondent
would be obligated to take additional steps to effectuate
delivery if the notice is returned. Monge v. Commissioner, supra
at 33-34. A notice that is returned undelivered is still valid
as long as it was sent to the last known address. Stroupe v.
Commissioner, supra. Thus, respondent was not required to
investigate further when the notice of deficiency was returned
undelivered. See Monge v. Commissioner, supra at 33-34; Snow v.
Commissioner, supra.
We have considered the other arguments of the parties, and
they are irrelevant and/or lack merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: May 25, 2011