- 3 -
in the United States. This Court has no jurisdiction over the
case if a petition is filed beyond the prescribed 90-day time
period. Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984).
Respondent bears the burden of proving that the notice of
deficiency was properly mailed. August v. Commissioner, 54 T.C.
1535, 1536 (1970). The date appearing on the notice of
deficiency is not proof of the date of mailing. Southern Calif.
Loan Association v. Commissioner, 4 B.T.A. 223, 226 (1926). This
Court requires respondent to establish that the notice of
deficiency was properly delivered to the Postal Service for
mailing. Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82, 90 (1990). Proof
of mailing is generally established by a properly postmarked U.S.
Postal Service Form 3877 and constitutes highly probative
evidence that a notice of deficiency was, in fact, mailed on the
date postmarked to the taxpayer listed on the form. Cataldo v.
Commissioner, 60 T.C. 522, 524 (1973), affd. per curiam 499 F.2d
550 (2d Cir. 1974); August v. Commissioner, supra at 1538.
However, the absence of a postmarked Form 3877 is not fatal to
the validity of the notice of deficiency when respondent submits
other documentary evidence or testimony to prove that the notice
of deficiency was timely mailed. See Shuford v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1990-422, affd. without published opinion 937 F.2d 609
(6th Cir. 1991); cf. Magazine v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 321, 326
(1987).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011