- 8 -
we find that such testimony, in conjunction with Mr.
Christensen’s admission of receipt, is satisfactory evidence that
the mail was delivered in the regular course of business, and
that Mr. Christensen timely received the document.
Petitioners then contend that respondent did not mail the
notice of deficiency to Mr. Christensen’s office by certified
mail. We note that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit has squarely addressed and rejected this argument in
Berger v. Commissioner, 404 F.2d 668 (3d Cir. 1968), affg. 48
T.C. 848 (1967). See also Freiling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42,
51 n.13 (1983); Balkissoon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-322,
affd. 995 F.2d 525 (4th Cir. 1993). In Berger v. Commissioner,
supra at 675, the court stated:
We therefore reject a construction of the procedural
provisions of section 6212 which would yield the
startling conclusion that a notice given to clients
and their lawyer is inadequate even though they
received it in due course, simply because the lawyer’s
copy should have been the original, and the channel of
certified mail which was used for the taxpayers should
have been used for the lawyer.
Accordingly, we hold that the notice of deficiency for
petitioners’ 1992 taxable year was validly sent to petitioners’
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011