- 6 -
issue, however, the Court will review the Commissioner’s
administrative determination for abuse of discretion. Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114
T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000).
Petitioner contends that: (1) The period of limitations on
assessment has expired because respondent did not properly mail
the notice of deficiency to him within the 3-year period of
limitations; (2) petitioner did not receive notice of his rights
as required by law; and (3) petitioner was not given an
opportunity to appeal the assessed deficiencies.
At the outset, we note that section 6212(b)(1)1 does not
require actual receipt by a taxpayer of the notice of deficiency.
We have held that Form 3877 is direct evidence of both the fact
and the date of mailing. See Magazine v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.
321, 327 n.8 (1987) (stating that Form 3877 is often the only
direct evidence of mailing a notice of deficiency). In the
absence of contrary evidence, Form 3877 is sufficient to
establish that the notice was properly sent to the taxpayer.
1Sec. 6212(a) provides: “If the Secretary determines that
there is a deficiency in respect of any tax * * *, he is
authorized to send notice of such deficiency to the taxpayer by
certified or registered mail.” “[A] notice of a deficiency in
respect of a tax imposed * * *, if mailed to the taxpayer at his
last known address * * *, shall be sufficient”. Sec. 6212(b)(1)
(emphasis added). Pursuant to sec. 6212(b)(1), a notice of
deficiency sent by certified mail to the taxpayer at his last
known address is valid and sufficient whether or not it is
actually received. United States v. Ahrens, 530 F.2d 781, 785
(8th Cir. 1976).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011