- 18 -
was the Elm Street address. There is no record evidence
petitioner notified respondent before December 12, 1996, that the
Elm Street address was no longer his mailing address. Respondent
performed a thorough investigation to determine petitioner’s
address by contacting the U.S. Postal Service and using the
numerous Forms 1099 petitioner received in 1996.
On January 8, 1997, the U.S. Postal Service returned to
respondent the notices of deficiency and the covering envelopes
stamped “unclaimed”. The envelopes displayed no indication that
petitioner was no longer using the Elm Street address or that
this address was invalid. In the absence of clear evidence to
the contrary, the presumptions of official regularity and
delivery justify the conclusion that respondent sent the
statutory notices, and the U.S. Postal Service properly attempted
to deliver the notices. See United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808
(9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Ahrens, 530 F.2d 781 (8th Cir.
1976); Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 611 (2000). The facts
and circumstances of this case, including petitioner’s failure to
claim mail sent by the Court and the difficulties in contacting
him, lead us to conclude that petitioner’s conduct constituted
deliberate refusal of delivery of the statutory notices. He
thereby forfeited his opportunity to contest the underlying
deficiencies in a proceeding in this Court under section 6330(d).
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011