- 9 -
Respondent bears the burden of proving by competent and
persuasive evidence that the final notice was properly mailed.9
Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82, 90 (1990). As proof that
the final notice was mailed to petitioner, respondent produced
the Cincinnati Internal Revenue Service Support Center’s
automated collection service certified mail list for October 23,
2004.10 The certified mail list contains a date stamp of October
23, 2004, from the Covington, Kentucky, USPS. The certified list
shows petitioner's name, taxpayer identification number, the
Newark, California, address, the tax form and period to which the
notice relates, and the certified mail number of the final
notice. Respondent also submitted the Internal Revenue Service
account transcript for petitioner which contains an entry
indicating that the final notice was mailed to petitioner on
October 23, 2004.
Petitioner failed to appear on February 5, 2007, when his
case was called, and therefore did not introduce any evidence to
9 Because a statutory notice of deficiency, like a sec. 6330
notice, requires the Commissioner to mail the notice by way of
certified or registered mail to the taxpayer’s last known
address, we apply the principles enunciated in notice of
deficiency caselaw to determine whether respondent properly
discharged his duty under sec. 6330(a)(2). See sec. 6212.
10 The certified mail list does not contain any indication
of the number of items received by the USPS, nor is it signed or
initialed by a USPS employee. The certified mail list offered by
respondent is thus insufficient to create a presumption of proper
mailing. See Bobbs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-272.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007