Diane Williams v. Commission Internal Revenue Service

Good Law
91 Daily Journal DAR 6804·935 F.2d 1066·1991 WL 96625·68 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5048·1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 11685
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 11, 199189-70527California758 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hug, J.

Appellant Diane Williams (“Williams”) appeals the Tax Court’s dismissal of her petition for redetermination of a deficiency in income tax. The dismissal was based upon a finding by the Tax Court that the petition was untimely and, therefore, the Tax Court had no jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482 .

There is no question but that the petition was not filed within the prescribed period from the date the notice of deficiency was sent. Williams contends, however, that the time for filing the petition for redetermination did not commence to run because the notice of deficiency was not received by her and was not sent to her last known address. A notice of deficiency is valid if it is mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address even if it is not received by the taxpayer. United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 , 105 S.Ct. 116 , 83 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). “A taxpayer’s last known address is that on his most recent return, unless the taxpayer communicates to the IRS ‘clear and concise’ notice of change of address.” Id. (citations omitted).

Prior to the mailing of the notice of deficiency, Williams had filed a tax return…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.