- 32 -
prima facie evidence that the document was delivered. See sec.
301.7502-1(d)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Petitioners, however,
did not send the Form 2688 by certified or registered mail.
Notwithstanding a taxpayer’s failure to use certified or
registered mail, “proof that a document was properly mailed will
create a ‘presumption that the document was delivered and “was
actually received by the person to whom it was addressed.”’”
Carroll v. Commissioner, supra (quoting Estate of Wood v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 793, 798 (1989) (quoting Hagner v. United
States, 285 U.S. 427, 430 (1932)), affd. 909 F.2d 1155 (8th Cir.
1990)).
When a taxpayer does not have documentary evidence that a
form was mailed, we have in some circumstances allowed indirect
evidence to prove that the form was mailed. See Estate of Wood
v. Commissioner, supra; Mitchell Offset Plate Serv., Inc. v.
Commissioner, 53 T.C. 235, 240 (1969); Hiner v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1993-608; Shuford v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-422
(Commissioner can submit extrinsic evidence to prove timely
mailing of notice of deficiency), affd. without published opinion
937 F.2d 609 (6th Cir. 1991). Direct testimony a postmark was
affixed may be sufficient to prove mailing. Estate of Wood v.
Commissioner, supra.
Standard operating procedures require stamping the
“received” date on the face of Form 2688. See Internal Revenue
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011