David A. Lehmann - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         
          to dispute the liability, the Court has held that taxpayers                 
          cannot defeat actual receipt by deliberately refusing delivery of           
          a statutory notice.  Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C at 610-611;              
          Tatum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-115; Carey v.                        
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-209; Baxter v. Commissioner, T.C.             
          Memo. 2001-300.  Here, the testimony given at trial suggests that           
          petitioner’s communication of the West Deer Valley address to the           
          Internal Revenue Service in January of 1999, and subsequent                 
          failure to notify of any new addresses, may have been a                     
          deliberate preemptive attempt to prevent delivery of any notice             
          of deficiency.  The substantial nature of the relevant tax                  
          deficiencies, exceeding $250,000 for each of the years in issue,            
          further enhances the likelihood of this scenario.  To the extent            
          that the West Deer Valley address had been outdated for 8 years             
          or “since 1996” at the time of trial in October of 2004, the 1999           
          letter would have been inaccurate when written.  Petitioner would           
          reasonably be considered in such circumstances to have                      
          deliberately repudiated his opportunity to contest the notices of           
          deficiency in this Court and likewise now to be precluded from              
          challenging his underlying liability in this proceeding.                    
               Nonetheless, even if petitioner were entitled to contest his           
          underlying liabilities at this juncture, he has at no time                  
          offered even a scintilla of evidence that would show error in               
          respondent’s determinations.  He declined at trial to address in            






Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011