-8-
IRS. Although petitioner notes correctly that respondent
initially mailed the examination notice to petitioner at an
address different from that shown in respondent’s records, the
most critical fact is that respondent correctly mailed both the
30-day letter and the Letter 1912(DO) to petitioner’s most
recently reported address approximately 9 months and 4 months,
respectively, before issuing the notice of deficiency. The
30-day letter (and possibly the Letter 1912(DO)), and not the
examination notice, allowed petitioner the opportunity to confer
with Appeals as to 2000 before the notice of deficiency was
issued. Even if petitioner failed to receive either of these
letters, as he claims but which we decline to find as a fact, it
was not as he claims due to respondent’s lack of diligence; it
was due to petitioner’s own action of reporting 4302 Callahan as
his address on his 2001 joint return.3
3 Although we do not countenance the fact that respondent
mailed the examination notice to petitioner at an address that
was inconsistent with the address shown in respondent’s records,
and thus may have deprived petitioner of an opportunity to settle
this matter at the examination level, an award of litigation
costs does not necessarily follow from that action. A
prerequisite to petitioner’s award of litigation costs is that he
have participated in an Appeals Office conference, unless one was
not available, before petitioning this Court. We find as a fact
that an Appeals Office conference was available in that
respondent mailed both the 30-day letter and the Letter 1912(DO)
to petitioner’s most recently reported address approximately 9
months and 4 months, respectively, before issuing the notice of
deficiency. While petitioner claims to have failed to receive
either of these letters, it was due to his own action of
reporting 4302 Callahan as his address on his 2001 joint return.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011