Garrett Lawrence Bailey - Page 12

                                       - 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