- 8 -
with respondent. Petitioner has not argued that the Market
Street address was not his last known address,7 nor has he argued
that respondent failed to follow his established mailing
procedures. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding
that respondent mailed the notice of deficiency to petitioner at
his last known address on January 6, 2004, and we so find.
Timely Filed Petition
Petitioner also argues that his petition was filed timely
because he mailed his Request to respondent “within the 90 Day
Unit period for appeal”,8 and we accepted and filed the Request
7A taxpayer’s last known address is either the address
listed on his most recently filed Federal income tax return or
another address, if taxpayer notifies Commissioner of a change of
address. Sec. 301.6212-2(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also
Leask v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-347. Petitioner’s most
recently filed tax return as of Jan. 6, 2004, is not in the
record, and there is no evidence that petitioner communicated an
alternate address to respondent.
8Petitioner argues, alternatively, that his Request was
mailed timely to respondent and should have been administratively
reviewed by respondent. Respondent’s letter of Nov. 4, 2003,
stated that petitioner had 15 days to request an Appeals
conference with an Appeals officer. Petitioner contends that he
did not receive the Nov. 4, 2003, letter until December. Even if
we assume that petitioner received the letter on Dec. 31, 2003,
his Request mailed on Feb. 20, 2004, was sent well outside the
allotted 15-day period for appeal. Therefore, petitioner did not
timely mail his Request to respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011