- 6 -
their petition. See Sicari v. Commissioner, 136 F.3d 925 (2d
Cir. 1998), (citing Pugsley v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 691, 692-
693 (11th Cir. 1985)); see also Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C.
42, 53 (1983). There is a strong presumption in the law that a
properly addressed letter will be delivered, or offered for
delivery, to the addressee. See Hoffenberg v. Commissioner, 905
F.2d 665, 666 (2d Cir. 1990), affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-676; Mulder
v. Commissioner, 855 F.2d 208, 212 (5th Cir. 1988), revg. T.C.
Memo. 1987-363; Zenco Engineering Corp. v. Commissioner, 75 T.C.
318, 323 (1980), affd. 673 F.2d 1332 (7th Cir. 1981). This
presumption can be rebutted with a showing of postal mishandling.
See Mulder v. Commissioner, supra (lack of return receipt for
deficiency notice indicates Postal Service mishandled the
notice); Estate of McKaig v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. 331 (1968)
(envelope was diverted by the Post Office); Violette v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-173 (envelope with notation
indicating "First Notice, 1-30-83", which preceded issuance of
the notice of deficiency dated 01-27-86, "suggests a lack of
attention to detail that we are unwilling to overlook under such
circumstances".) Here we must determine whether, given the
strong presumption of delivery, there was actual delivery of the
notice of deficiency.
Although the envelope containing the notice of deficiency
was received by the Gardiner Post Office and was treated by the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011