- 16 -
The purpose of the mailing under section 6212 is to provide
the taxpayer with notice that a deficiency has been determined
against him or her, and to provide the taxpayer with an
opportunity to petition this Court to challenge the
Commissioner’s determination.13 Id. at 53. When a taxpayer
receives actual notice of a deficiency and does not suffer
prejudicial delay in filing timely a petition with this Court,
the notice of deficiency, even though incorrectly addressed, is
valid under section 6212(a).14 Estate of Greenwood v.
13Petitioner contends that Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220
(2006) “ruled that the government could not rely solely on an
unclaimed certified letter for properly notifying a taxpayer of
claimed tax liabilities.” Petitioner’s contention is mistaken
and Jones v. Flowers, supra, is not applicable to petitioner’s
case. Jones v. Flowers, supra, held that according to the
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, the State of Arkansas
should have taken additional reasonable steps to notify the
petitioner of a tax sale of his house after a certified letter
was returned unclaimed. Notably, Mr. Jones did not learn of the
tax sale until after the sale had occurred; whereas in the
instant case petitioner obtained a copy of the notice of
deficiency before the expiration of the 90-day filing period and
filed a timely petition.
14Petitioner alleges that the notice of deficiency sent to
his Round Rock, Texas, address was addressed erroneously.
Petitioner alleges that because respondent placed “Unit 831"
before “1111 South Creek Drive” in addressing the notice of
deficiency, this “caused the US Postal Service to process the
letter as one destined to be delivered to a private mailbox or
‘PMB’ contained within a commercial facility such as a MAILBOXES
ETC., POSTNET, POSTAL ANNEX, and PAKMAIL; not the apartment
Petitioner resided at”. [Reproduced literally.] Petitioner
asserts that as a result of the misaddressing by respondent, the
notice of deficiency was returned to respondent.
Petitioner also asserts that respondent committed criminal
(continued...)
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007