Utah Orpheum Co. v. Commissioner
United States Board of Tax Appeals
The forwarding of a notice of deficiency to an address which is not the address of the taxpayer does not constitute mailing within the meaning of the Revenue Act of 1926. In the instant case a notice was forwarded to an incorrect address, and thereafter, on its return undelivered, it was mailed to the taxpayer's correct address. The appeal lies from the letter which was properly mailed.
1Opinion of the Court
*344OPINION.
Korner, Chairman:
The facts here are quite similar to those in Walter G. Morgan, 5 B. T. A. 1035. That case was decided with relation to the Revenue Act of 1924, but it will be noted that, in so far as respects the matter of mailing of notices of deficiencies, the provisions contained in section 274 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1926 are not materialy different from those contained in the corresponding section of the Revenue Act of 1924. That section in the later Act provides:
If in tlie case of any taxpayer, the Commissioner determines that there is a deficiency in respect of the tax…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Firnhaber v. NelsonDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1962
- Utah Orpheum Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1927