Brzezinski v. Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably Frieling v. Commissioner (1983), Alta Sierra Vista, Inc. v. Commissioner (1974)
3 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Botany Worsted Mills v. United States · Commissioner v. Stewart · Nash v. United States · Arlington Corp. v. Commissioner · Commissioner v. New York Trust Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Taxpayers would have us read into section 272(a) the requirement that to be valid the deficiency notice must be sent “to the taxpayer [at his last known address] by registered mail.” It is true that section 272(k) provides that the notice is sufficient where mailed to the “last known address” even if the “taxpayer is deceased, or is under a legal disability, or, in the case of a corporation, has terminated its existence.” This has been construed to mean that a notice sent to the “last known address” is sufficient even though the taxpayer has moved and does not receive notice of the deficiency until after the time has expired for filing a petition. Joseph Marcus, 12 T.C. 1071 . See also Abraham Goldstein, 22 T.C. 1233 . But while section 272(k) might imply that, in the situations specified therein, notice sent to other than the “last known address” is not sufficient (cf. Botany Worsted Mills v. United States, 278 U.S. 282 ), it does not imply that notice sent to a non-incapacitated taxpayer at other than his “last known address” which is received by him “in due course” does not satisfy the statutory requirements. Cf. Dilks v. Blair, (C.A. 7) 23. F.2d 831. Congress was primarily concerned with giving the taxpayer notice within ample time to file a timely petition. When, as here, a timely petition was filed, it is obvious that sufficient notice was received. The problem is different if the wrong address results in a delay in the receipt of the notice, and a timely petition is no”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“is sufficient even though the taxpayer has moved and does not receive notice of the deficiency until after the time has expired for filing a petition. Joseph Marcus , 12 T.C. 1071 . See also Abraham Goldstein , 22 T.C. 1233 . But while section 272(k) might imply that, in the situations specified therein, notice sent to other than the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a notice sent to the wrong address and not received by the taxpayer is not deemed to have been mailed within the purview of the statute [emphasis added].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.