- 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 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007