- 8 -
attempts to deliver were made in the manner contended by
respondent. Id. Further, in the context of a section 6330
proceeding, taxpayers cannot defeat “actual receipt” by
deliberately refusing delivery of a notice of deficiency. Id.;
see also Hochschild v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-195 (raising
presumption of delivery when several attempts at delivery were
made, and the notice went unclaimed).
However, the facts we consider here are more analogous to
those in Tatum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-115. In that
case, this Court found it significant that the USPS made only one
attempt at delivery and that the taxpayer did not intentionally
refuse delivery, distinguishing the case from Sego where there
were multiple attempts to deliver and the taxpayer intentionally
refused delivery. Id. Moreover, the taxpayers in Tatum credibly
testified that they did not receive a notice or know the USPS was
attempting to deliver one. Id.
In this case, even though it was shown that the notice was
addressed to petitioner, respondent has not introduced evidence
showing that the notice was submitted to the USPS for delivery at
all. Unlike Sego, where it was shown that delivery was attempted
several times, respondent has not shown a single attempt at
delivery. If Postal Service employees properly discharged their
official duties, respondent would have received a signed
certified mail receipt or a returned notice of deficiency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011