- 9 -
under section 6330 although she did not actually receive a notice
of deficiency. On the basis of Erhard v. Commissioner, 87 F.3d
273 (9th Cir. 1996), affg. T.C. Memo. 1994-344, and Patmon &
Young Profl. Corp. v. Commissioner, 55 F.3d 216, 218 (6th Cir.
1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-143, we held that the conduct of the
wife and her husband “constituted deliberate refusal of delivery
and repudiation of their opportunity to contest the notices of
deficiency in this Court”. Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 611;
accord Baxter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-300. We believe
that the same principle applies here. Although Mr. Carey
testified that he did not know that the Commissioner was
attempting to deliver a notice of deficiency to him and his wife,
the facts and circumstances of this case, coupled with our
observation of Mr. Carey during his testimony, lead us to
conclude that petitioners deliberately refused delivery of the
notice. First, absent clear evidence to the contrary, employees
of the USPS are presumed to properly discharge their official
duties. United States v. Chem. Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15
(1926) (“The presumption of regularity supports the official acts
of public officers and, in the absence of clear evidence to the
contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their
official duties.”). Petitioners have not rebutted this
presumption as to the USPS’s attempted delivery of the notices of
deficiency. Second, the Lawrence address housed a small business
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011