- 8 -
of the taxpayers “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.
Relying on Sego v. Commissioner, supra, and Baxter v.
Commissioner, supra, respondent herein contends that petitioners’
failure to claim the certified letter cannot support any claim they
may have that they did not receive the notice. Those cases are
distinguishable from the case now before us. In those cases, it
was demonstrated that the USPS made multiple attempts to deliver
the notices of deficiency and the taxpayers intentionally refused
delivery. See also Ashley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-286;
Carey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-209; Hochschild v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-195. By contrast, in this case, the
USPS made only one attempt at delivery before returning the notice
as unclaimed. On the basis of our observation of petitioners
during their testimony, we are satisfied that petitioners did not
deliberately refuse delivery of the notice.
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011