DocketNumber: Docket No. 27174-85.
Citation Numbers: 52 T.C.M. 1244, 1986 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 7, 1986 T.C. Memo. 599
Filed Date: 12/29/1986
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
P filed a timely petition in response to R's statutory notice of deficiency. P alleged that the notice was not sent to P's last known address. In an attempt to support this allegation, P served a request for interrogatories and request for documents on R. R objected to P's discovery requests as irrelevant.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
PANUTHOS,
In its discovery request, petitioner seeks information relating to the question of *9 whether the notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner's last known address. Respondent has objected to a substantial portion of petitioner's discovery request. The basis of respondent's objection is that the requested discovery is not relevant since, as a matter of law, the last known address question is not a proper issue in this case. Respondent argues in the alternative that the discovery request is duplicative, unduly burdensome and overly broad. Petitioner argues that the two principal issues in this case are: (1) whether a valid statutory notice has been issued in this case and (2) if a valid notice of deficiency was issued whether the notice was sent to petitioner's last known address. Since the parties appear to agree that the requested discovery relates only to the issue of whether the statutory notice of deficiency was sent to petitioner's last known address, we look to determine whether, based on the facts in the present record, we can determine as a matter of law, that there is no genuine issue of material fact relating to this matter.
Our first consideration is to determine whether or not petitioner has made a proper request for discovery and, if so, determine *10 whether we should sustain respondent's objections thereto. The purpose of discovery is to reduce surprise by providing a means by which the parties can obtain knowledge of relevant facts in sufficient time to perfect a record for purposes of trial. 4 A party's right to discovery is determined by reference to principles of relevancy and materiality as set forth in Rule 70 which is derived generally from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Since the parties agree that the request *11 for discovery 5 relates only to the question of the last known address we consider that issue as it relates to the relevancy of the discovery.
Petitioner alleges in its petition and in other documents that the notice of deficiency was not sent to petitioner's last known address and that respondent's agents failed to otherwise timely notify petitioner of the deficiency.6*12 *13 *14 For purposes of our opinion herein, we assume those facts most favorable to petitioner. Accordingly, to properly consider respondent's objection to discovery we assume that the requested discovery could lead to facts which would cause us to conclude that the notice of deficiency was not sent to petitioner's last known address as that term has been judicially defined. See
The question of petitioner's "last known address" usually arises either because of (1) a jurisdictional defect (untimely petition and claim by the taxpayer that the notice of deficiency was not sent to the last known address, e.g.,
We first consider the jurisdictional question. There is no dispute that a timely petition was filed in this case. In this regard, "It has been held repeatedly that an error in the address to which the notice of deficiency is mailed does not render the notice invalid so as to defeat Tax Court jurisdiction where the petition is timely filed."
Petitioner relies on
The tax year in issue in this case is 1982. The notice of deficiency was issued on April 11, 1985. A timely petition was filed. Since the return was due to be filed on April 15, 1983 the normal three-year statute of limitations would expire on April 15, 1986 assuming the return was filed on or before that date. 10 Section 6501(a). Thus, since the notice of deficiency was timely issued on April 11, 1985 and received by petitioner there is no statute of limitations issue present in this case. *17 11
We are unaware of any information that petitioner could obtain through discovery which would cause a different result herein. Accordingly, since we have found that there is no genuine issue or matter regarding the last known address of the notice of deficiency, and as a matter of law we have jurisdiction in this case, petitioner's discovery request is not relevant or material to any issue or subject matter of this litigation. Thus, petitioner's Motion to Compel, filed September 22, 1986, will be denied.
1. This case was assigned pursuant to
2. The notice of deficiency was addressed to Alvin A. Goldstein and Phyllis Goldstein. ↩
3. Alvin A. Goldstein died on or about January 26, 1984. The original petition was filed on behalf of Alvin A. Goldstein, deceased, by William Goldstein, trustee. By Order dated March 26, 1986 the Court allowed the petition to be modified, permitting substitution of William Goldstein and Merrill W. Polancer, administrators Ad Litem, for William Goldstein, trustee, as personal representatives of the estate. At the time of his death Alvin A. Goldstein resided in Boca Raton, Florida. The estate was probated by the Probate Court, Palm Beach County, Florida.↩
4.
5. There does not appear to be an issue of compliance by petitioner with informal requests for information.
6. The allegations are in part as follows: William Goldstein was named trustee of a revocable trust executed by Alvin A. Goldstein on April 17, 1979; Alvin A. Goldstein signed a document dated November 28, 1983 entitled Last Will and Testament which states that Phyllis Goldstein is designated personal representative; as of the date of filing the Petition herein, Phyllis Goldstein had not offered the November 28, 1983 document for probate administration nor had she qualified as a personal representative of the estate; Alvin A. Goldstein died on January 26, 1984 and immediately prior to his death he was domiciled in Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida; William Goldstein is named as executor in a document entitled Last Will and Testament of Alvin A. Goldstein, dated January 31, 1983; Alvin A. Goldstein filed a joint Federal income tax return with his wife Phyllis Goldstein for the taxable year 1982; a notice of deficiency, dated April 11, 1985, was sent to Alvin A. Goldstein and Phyllis Goldstein at P.O. Box 992, Boca Raton, Florida 33429; William Goldstein, trustee, filed a Form 1040 for Alvin A. Goldstein [year omitted] in October 1984. The return reflected an address of Alvin A. Goldstein (deceased 1-26-84), 800 Standard Building, Cleveland, Ohio 44113; a letter was sent by Merrill W. Polancer, C.P.A. to the Internal Revenue Service, dated March 5, 1985, advising the Internal Revenue Service that Jeffry L. Weiler was representing Alvin A. Goldstein; on March 11, 1985, the Internal Revenue Service received a letter dated March 6, 1985 from Jeffry L. Weiler, counsel to William Goldstein, trustee, and power of attorney authorizing Jeffry L. Weiler to represent Alvin A. Goldstein for income tax matters for 1982, 1983 and 1984. The address of Alvin A. Goldstein was shown as William A. Goldstein, trustee, 800 Standard Building, Cleveland, Ohio 44113; on June 7, 1985, a representative of the Internal Revenue Service called attorney Jeffry L. Weiler to advise that a notice of deficiency was issued on April 11, 1985 concerning Alvin A. Goldstein's 1982 income tax liability; on June 17, 1985 a representative of the Internal Revenue Service mailed to attorney Weiler the face page of the April 11, 1985 notice of deficiency; on June 24, 1985 a representative of the Internal Revenue Service mailed to attorney Weiler a copy of a June 24, 1985 form letter (letter 1020) with attachments reflecting the income tax changes and adjustments by the Internal Revenue Service. Attorney Weiler concludes from the aforementioned allegations that petitioner was significantly prejudiced by the Internal Revenue Service's failure to timely provide a copy of the notice of deficiency.
7. See also
8. See also
9. Compare
10. While the record does not indicate the date the return was filed, we note that there is no delinquency addition determined under section 6651(a)(1). Accordingly, taking a position most favorable to petitioner, we assume that the return was timely filed. ↩
11. Petitioner has not raised the statute of limitations. Rule 39 requires that a party affirmatively plead the statute of limitations. No such pleadings are made here.↩