- 12 -
his 1995 and 1996 tax liabilities. Petitioner stipulated that a
notice of deficiency for 1995 and 1996, “issued by the Office of
the Internal Revenue Service at Los Angeles, California, was
mailed to the Petitioner on April 15, 1999.” Petitioner also
stipulated that his address at the time the notice of deficiency
was mailed was the same address used to mail the notice of
deficiency and that the notice of deficiency was not returned as
undeliverable.
“There is a strong presumption in the law that a properly
addressed letter will be delivered, or offered for delivery, to
the addressee.” Zenco Engg. Corp. v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 318,
323 (1980), affd. without published opinion 673 F.2d 1332 (7th
Cir. 1981); see also Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 611 (“In the
absence of clear evidence to the contrary, the presumptions of
official regularity and of delivery justify the conclusion that
the statutory notice was sent and that attempts to deliver were
made in the manner contended by respondent.”). Proper mailing of
the notice of deficiency places the risk of nondelivery on the
taxpayer. Figler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-230; Barrash
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-592, affd. without published
opinion 862 F.2d 872 (5th Cir. 1988).
Petitioner does not dispute that the notice of deficiency
was mailed to his last known address, and he does not
unequivocally deny that he received it. The only evidence
petitioner has produced to rebut the presumption of delivery is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011