- 7 -
the notice of deficiency is mailed to file a petition with the
Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.
The Commissioner bears the burden of proving by competent
and persuasive evidence that a notice of deficiency was properly
mailed to a taxpayer. Cataldo v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 522, 524
(1973), affd. per curiam 499 F.2d 550 (2d Cir. 1974). We require
the Commissioner to introduce evidence showing that the notice of
deficiency was properly delivered to the U.S. Postal Service for
mailing. Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82, 90 (1990). The
act of mailing may be proven by evidence of the Commissioner’s
mailing practices corroborated by direct testimony or documentary
evidence. Id. The Commissioner is not required to produce
employees who personally recall each of the many notices of
deficiency which are mailed annually. Cataldo v. Commissioner,
supra at 524.
There is no dispute in this case regarding the existence of
the notice of deficiency dated December 4, 2001. Petitioners
acknowledge receiving the notice of deficiency in late December
2001.
Respondent asserts that the notice of deficiency was mailed
to petitioners on December 4, 2001, and, therefore, the 90-day
period for filing a timely petition with the Court expired on
March 4, 2002-–more than 2 weeks before petitioners mailed their
petition to the Court. Petitioners concede that, if the notice
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011