- 7 -
communication that result in actual notice to the taxpayer.
Mulvania v. Commissioner, supra.
Consequently, petitioner's contention that the notice of
deficiency was invalid because it was not sent to his last known
address is without merit. In petitioner's circumstances, we need
not and do not decide whether the notice of deficiency was mailed
to petitioner at his last known address. See Mulvania v.
Commissioner, supra at 66-67; Masino v. Commissioner, supra.
It is settled law that the validity of a notice of
deficiency will be sustained when "mailing results in actual
notice to the taxpayer without prejudicial delay". Mileti v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-383; see, e.g., Miller v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. 316, 329-331 (1990); Mulvania v.
Commissioner, supra at 67-69; Frieling v. Commissioner, supra at
52-53. Petitioner argues that receipt of the notice of
deficiency 75 days prior to the deadline for filing the petition
constituted prejudicial delay such that the notice of deficiency
should be adjudged invalid. We do not agree.
Whether a taxpayer has been prejudiced by a delayed notice
of deficiency is a question of fact. Looper v. Commissioner, 73
T.C. 690, 699 (1980). Petitioner contends that 75 days was
insufficient time for him to prepare and file the petition
because he had to locate and contact his former spouse who
possessed the necessary records. The petition as filed, however,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007