- 11 -
what information was available to the Commissioner at the time
the notice was mailed. See Eschweiler v. United States, 946 F.2d
45, 48 (7th Cir. 1991). In other words, what is significant is
what respondent knew at the time the notice was issued,
attributing “to respondent information which respondent knows, or
should know, with respect to a taxpayer’s last known address,
through the use of its computer system.” Abeles v. Commissioner,
supra at 1035. Here, respondent and his representatives sent
mail concerning petitioner’s taxes to the Milford address on the
very same day they sent the final notice to the Wheaton address.
Respondent clearly had the correct information.
In McPartlin v. Commissioner, 653 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir. 1981),
the Seventh Circuit found the Commissioner had not mailed a
notice of deficiency to the taxpayers’ last known address
because, inter alia, other correspondence from the IRS had gone
to the taxpayers’ correct address. The Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit wrote, in 1981, that we live in the age of
“sophisticated computer information storage and retrieval
systems” such that asking the Commissioner to make use of them
“can hardly be deemed to impose an unreasonable burden”. Id. at
1190 n.8; see also Alta Sierra Vista, Inc. v. Commissioner, 538
F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1976); Delman v. Commissioner, 384 F.2d 929
(3d Cir. 1967), affg. T.C. Memo. 1966-59; O’Brien v.
Commissioner, supra at 550. The Court can only imagine that if
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011