- 13 -
the mail carrier delivers only the second notice of attempted
delivery.
In the instant case, due to a shortage of postal workers,
the second notice of attempted delivery was not delivered to
petitioner until April 11, 2005, almost a month after the first
delivery attempt. The notice of determination was delivered on
April 13, 2005, which was after the expiration of the 30-day
filing period. This was unfortunate, but “Once the notice of
deficiency is mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address,
nothing in the Code requires respondent to take additional steps
to effectuate delivery.” Howard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1993-315 (citing Pomeroy v. United States, 864 F.2d 1191, 1195
(5th Cir. 1989) and King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 681 (9th
Cir. 1988), affg. on other grounds 88 T.C. 1042 (1987)).
The Court concludes that respondent mailed the notice of
determination concerning collection action to petitioner’s last
known address, and that the erroneous ZIP Code was an
inconsequential error because it did not adversely affect the
proper delivery of the notice. Accordingly, the notice of
determination is valid. The Court will grant respondent’s motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the
petition was not filed timely.
The Court has considered all of the petitioner’s
contentions, arguments, requests, and statements. To the extent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007