No. 09-60822
Although the IRS had not received “clear and concise notification” that her
address had changed, the IRS is not entitled to rely on a lack of notification once
it is on notice that its address on file is incorrect. See Pomeroy, 864 F.2d at 1195.
Because the IRS failed to take any steps to determine Terrell’s correct
address after receiving the returned mail and before mailing the Notice, we are
compelled to find it did not exercise reasonable diligence. The IRS could have
done a computer search through the DMV, contacted Terrell's employer,
searched using Terrell’s social security number, or undertaken any number of
actions that might have located the Dallas address. See Mulder, 855 F.2d at 212
(listing different actions taken in other cases that might constitute reasonable
diligence). Because the IRS failed to exercise reasonable diligence, the IRS did
not mail the Notice to Terrell’s “last known address.”
B. Effective Start Date of the Petition Period
Having determined that the Notice sent on April 6 was not sent to Terrell’s
“last known address,” we must now determine the date on which Terrell’s
ninety-day petition period began. The Commissioner urges this Court to adopt
the “no prejudice” rule espoused by the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Ninth, and
Eleventh Circuits. This rule holds that despite failing to mail the notice to the
3
See Sicari v. Comm’r, 136 F.3d 925, 930 (2d Cir. 1998) (holding that the IRS satisfies
3
its duties under § 6212 if it can prove “that the envelope containing the notice was in fact
delivered . . . .” (citation omitted)); Patmon & Young Prof’l Corp. v. Comm’r, 55 F.3d 216, 217
(6th Cir. 1995) (“[N]otice of deficiency that is actually received without delay prejudicial to the
taxpayer’s ability to petition the Tax Court is sufficient [to meet the conditions of § 6212(a)].”
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (alteration in original)); Borgman v. Comm’r,
888 F.2d 916, 917 (1st Cir. 1989) (“A notice of deficiency that is actually received without delay
prejudicial to the taxpayer’s ability to petition the Tax Court is sufficient to toll the statute of
limitations as of the date of mailing.” (citations omitted)); Mulvania v. Comm’r, 769 F.2d 1376,
1378 (9th Cir. 1985) (“[A] notice of deficiency actually, physically received by a taxpayer is
valid under § 6212(a) if it is received in sufficient time to permit the taxpayer, without
prejudice, to file a petition in the Tax Court . . . .”); Pugsley v. Comm’r, 749 F.2d 691, 692–693
(11th Cir. 1985) (“We do not determine whether the notice was sent to Pugsley’s ‘last known
address,’ since even if it was not, Pugsley was not prejudiced because he ‘received actual notice
of the deficiency with ample time remaining to file a petition.’”(footnote and citation omitted));
Delman v. Comm’r, 384 F.2d 929, 934 (3d Cir. 1967) (holding that where the taxpayer actually
7
Case: 09-60822 Document: 00511280726 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/01/2010