- 21 -
conclude and hold that respondent failed to send the final notice
of intent to levy to petitioner’s last known address and that the
notice was therefore invalid. See Buffano v. Commissioner,
supra.
3. Whether To Impute to Petitioner Knowledge of the Notice
of Intent To Levy
On reply brief, respondent suggests that it is ultimately
irrelevant whether the final notice of intent to levy was mailed
to petitioner’s last known address because “it was, in fact,
actually received by petitioner’s attorney-in-fact in sufficient
time to meet the deadline for filing a timely appeal with the
Appeals office.” In support of this contention, respondent cites
St. Joseph Lease Capital Corp. v. Commissioner, 235 F.3d 886 (4th
Cir. 2000), affg. T.C. Memo. 1996-256, and Estate of Citrino v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-565. In each of those cases, a
statutory notice of deficiency was held valid even though not
mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address. In each of those
cases, however, the notice was obtained by the taxpayer or the
attorney, who then filed a timely petition. By contrast, neither
petitioner nor his accountant ever responded to the final notice
of intent to levy.
Petitioner testified credibly that he received no copy of
the final notice in 2003 and that if he had received it, he would
have requested a hearing. Although the evidence suggests that
petitioner’s Idaho accountants received the final notice of
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007