- 7 -
United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984); United
States v. Ahrens,530 F.2d 781, 785 (8th Cir. 1976); Cataldo v.
Commissioner, 60 T.C. 522, 524 (1973), affd. per curiam 499 F.2d
550 (2d Cir. 1974). Moreover, “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 (holding that “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.”). The effect of proper mailing is to
place the risk of nondelivery on the taxpayer. Trimble v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-419; Barrash v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1987-592, affd. 862 F.2d 872 (5th Cir. 1988).
Petitioner contends that he never received the notice of
deficiency and that respondent has no proof that petitioner
received a notice of deficiency. The notice of deficiency is
dated August 11, 1999, and is addressed to E. Neal Figler at 328
County Road, Madison, CT 06443.2 The Form 3877 bears that name
and address, is initialed by Pam Butler, respondent’s notice of
2 Petitioner did not dispute that this address was his last
known address.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011