- 9 -
Petitioner struggles to convince us by raising meritless
arguments that respondent did not properly mail, and petitioner
did not receive, the notice of deficiency. Petitioner argues,
among other things, that there could have been a mistake because
Pam Butler, respondent’s clerk who mailed the notice of
deficiency, did not place a check mark next to each name on Form
3877, despite testimony from John Bohan and Pam Butler that the
notice of deficiency and the mailing labels were double checked
before the Form 3877 was generated and from Dwight Davies that
the post office checks the article numbers on the pieces of
certified mail against the article numbers listed on Form 3877.
Petitioner also argues that respondent’s settlement officers
deliberately withheld, refused to look for, or destroyed
exculpatory evidence because they were afraid of losing their
jobs and perjured themselves to “cover up that fact.”
Specifically, petitioner asserts that respondent’s settlement
officers did not obtain evidence of a certified mail signed
receipt. We find petitioner’s arguments lacking in merit.
Other than his self-serving testimony that he never received
the notice of deficiency, petitioner has not produced sufficient
credible evidence to overcome the strong presumption of proper
mailing and delivery in the instant case. See Sego v.
Commissioner, supra at 611; see also Zenco Engg. Corp. v.
Commissioner, supra at 323 (stating “tax cases could all become
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011