Birnie v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Jurisdiction -- Mailing -- Section 272 (k). -- The petitioners moved from their former residence and gave the Commissioner their address as in care of a C. P. A. Deficiency notices sent in care of the C. P. A. and duly received were "sufficient" within section 272 (k) even though a new residence address was stated to and used by a representative of the Commissioner for another communication 4 days before the deficiency notices were mailed.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Murdock, Judge:
The petitioners, in their petitions, assign as error the failure of the Commissioner to comply with the requirements of section 272 (a) in regard to the mailing of a notice of deficiency. The proceeding was called for hearing on the merits at which time counsel for the petitioners moved to dismiss the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction based upon the alleged improper mailing. The facts upon that issue have been stipulated and the parties have been fully heard.
The petitioners are husband and wife. They filed separate returns for 1945 with the collector of internal…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. StewartCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1951
- Hulburd v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Carbone v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1947
- Block v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1943
- Midtown Catering Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1949
3Cited by28 opinions
- Alta Sierra Vista, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1974
- Lifter v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1973
- Keeton v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
- Brown v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1982
- Lester L. Luhring and Betty W. Luhring v. Clifford W. Glotzbach, District Director of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1962
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.