- 10 -
* * [him] a copy of who signed for it”.2 Additionally, the note
enclosed with the copy of petitioner’s 1992 return and directed
to “STOP 822 M. HOWARD” suggests that petitioner received other
IRS communications sent to the Plainview address, specifically
the September 25, 1998, letter.
In general, absent clear evidence to the contrary,
compliance with certified mail procedures raises a presumption of
official regularity in delivery and receipt with respect to
notices sent by the Commissioner. United States v. Zolla, 724
F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Ahrens, 530 F.2d
781, 784-785 (8th Cir. 1976); Clough v. Commissioner, 119 T.C.
183, 187-188 (2002); Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610-611.
Furthermore, taxpayers are not permitted to defeat actual receipt
by deliberately refusing delivery of a statutory notice. Sego v.
Commissioner, supra at 610-611. Suffice it to say that the
evidence here is far from convincing regarding petitioner’s
nonreceipt of the notice of deficiency. Petitioner would
reasonably be considered in these circumstances to have forfeited
his opportunity to contest the notice of deficiency in this Court
and likewise now to be precluded from challenging his underlying
liability in this proceeding.
2 In this connection, we also note that although the order
setting respondent’s motion for hearing was sent to petitioner by
certified mail on May 6, 2005, petitioner apparently did not pick
up the letter until May 31, 2005.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011