- 4 -
respondent’s failure to issue a valid Final Notice, rather than
for lack of timely filing of a petition. See Keeton v.
Commissioner, 74 T.C. 377, 379 (1980) (involving failure to file
a timely petition challenging a notice of deficiency under
section 6213(a)). As discussed below, petitioner has not shown
that respondent failed to issue a valid Final Notice.
Petitioner alleges that respondent never sent a copy of the
Final Notice directly to Mr. Midgley, as directed on petitioner’s
Form 2848. Petitioner contends that pursuant to Massachusetts
law, respondent’s alleged failure to give notice to petitioner’s
counsel was “an unfair and deceptive trade practice”.
The Form 2848, as executed by petitioner, did not authorize
respondent to mail an original document to Mr. Midgley, nor did
it indicate that she had moved to a new address. Accordingly, it
did not change petitioner’s last known address for purposes of
section 6015(e)(1)(A)(ii) or otherwise affect the mailing
requirements of that section. See Houghton v. Commissioner, 48
T.C 656, 661 (1967) (similarly construing mailing requirements
for notices of deficiency under section 6212). Respondent’s
alleged failure to send a copy of the Final Notice to
petitioner’s attorney did not extend the 90-day filing period.
See id.; Allen v. Commissioner, 29 T.C. 113, 117 (1957).
Petitioner acknowledges that she received the Final Notice
dated November 29, 2004, but complains vaguely that she did not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011