- 10 -
address absent clear and concise notification by taxpayer). In
determining whether the Commissioner acted with reasonable
diligence to identify the taxpayer's last known address, the
focus of the inquiry is the information the Commissioner had
available to him at the time the notice was mailed. Follum v.
United States, 128 F.3d 118, 119 (2d Cir. 1997); Eschweiler v.
United States, supra at 48. Whether the Commissioner has
discharged his obligation of reasonable diligence is a question
to be resolved upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
McPartlin v. Commissioner, supra.
When the taxpayer is incarcerated, we and other courts have
generally held that the Commissioner is entitled to treat an
address given in the return under audit, or in the return most
recently filed, as the last known address, even where the
Commissioner has some knowledge of the incarceration, absent
clear and concise notification by the taxpayer that the place of
incarceration or some other address should be used. See, e.g.,
Cohen v. United States, 297 F.2d 760 (9th Cir. 1962); Snell v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-470, affd. without published
opinion 50 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1995); Agustin v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-167; Tirado v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-448; cf.
United States v. Eisenhardt, 437 F. Supp. 247 (D. Md. 1977) (last
known address was place of incarceration where taxpayer advised
Commissioner of place and commencement date of incarceration).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011