- 6 - By letter dated August 29, 1995, respondent notified petitioner that his 1990 through 1993 income tax returns had been selected for examination. On November 3, 1995, respondent mailed to petitioner at P.O. Box 3673, Wilmington, NC (Wilmington address), a notice of deficiency for 1990 and a second notice of deficiency for the years 1991 through 1993. On February 23, 1996, the notices of deficiency were returned to respondent with the notation “BOX CLOSED UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER.” Petitioner did not file a timely petition with respect to the notices of deficiency, and, following petitioner’s late filing of a petition with this Court with respect to the notices of deficiency, in Follum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-474, affd. 128 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 1997), this Court determined that respondent had mailed the notices to petitioner’s last known address, the Wilmington address, and dismissed petitioner’s case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed our decision. On April 8, 1996, respondent assessed the amounts set forth in the notices of deficiency and mailed to petitioner at the Wilmington address notice and demand for payment of the amounts assessed. On April 12, 1996, respondent’s notice and demand for payment was returned with the notation “Box Closed” and “Unable to Forward.”Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007