Kuebler v. Commissioner, Docket No. 4695-78.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 4695-78. |
| Citation | 38 TCM (CCH) 454,1979 TC Memo 95 |
| Parties | Carol Lynn (Palumbo) Kuebler v. Commissioner. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
Carol Lynn (Palumbo) Kuebler, pro se, 81 Second St., Clifton, N.J. Robert B. Marino, for the respondent.
This matter is before the Court on respondent's "Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction" filed June 30, 1978, pursuant to Rule 53, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Respondent, who determined a $283 deficiency in petitioner's 1973 Federal income tax, contends that the petition herein was not filed within the period prescribed in section 6213(a).1
Petitioner was a resident of Clifton, New Jersey, when she filed her petition herein. She resided in Bayside, New York, when she filed her 1973 Federal income tax return reflecting that address. In 1974, petitioner moved from New York to Clifton, New Jersey. She filed her 1974 Federal income tax return in March of 1975 reflecting the New Jersey address.
On March 26, 1976, respondent mailed a statutory notice of deficiency for 1973 by certified mail to petitioner at her Bayside, New York, address — the address reflected on her 1973 return. The deficiency notice was returned undelivered. On October 18, 1976, after the expiration of the 90-day period prescribed in section 6213(a), respondent sent a bill to petitioner at her Clifton, New Jersey, address. On May 3, 1978, 768 days after the mailing of the notice of deficiency, petitioner filed her petition with this Court.
Section 6213(a) provides that a taxpayer in the United States may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of a deficiency within 90 days after the mailing of a deficiency to such taxpayer at her last known address. See also sec. 6212(b)(1). The taxpayer's last known address is the last known permanent address or legal residence of the taxpayer or the last known temporary address of a definite duration or period to which all communication during the period should be sent. Budlong v. Commissioner Dec. 31,500, 58 T.C. 850, 852 (1972). A taxpayer contending that a deficiency notice has been mailed to her at the wrong address, has the burden of proof to show that she furnished respondent with a clear and concise notification concerning a definite change of address. Budlong v. Commissioner, supra; Rule 142(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Until such notification, respondent is entitled to rely on the address shown on the taxpayer's return. Alta Sierra Vista, Inc. v. Commissioner Dec. 32,649, 62 T.C. 367, 374 (1974).
Petitioner contends that the filing of her 1974 return in 1975 reflecting her New Jersey address was notice to respondent of a change of her New York address. She maintains this notice was obviously adequate since her tax bill in October 1976 was mailed to her correct New Jersey address.
We have held on prior occasions that the mere filing of a tax return for a subsequent taxable year...
To continue reading
Request your trial