- 6 - received a statutory notice of deficiency for that tax liability. * * * * * * * The petitioners received a statutory notice of deficiency for the tax year 2002. * * * More specifically, as noted above, respondent properly mailed the statutory notice of deficiency to the petitioners’ last known address on July 29, 2004. * * * Respondent is entitled to rely upon presumptions of official regularity and delivery where the record reflects proper mailing of the statutory notice of deficiency. * * * There is no evidence that the statutory notice of deficiency was returned to the Service, nor have the petitioners ever denied its receipt. Thus, the presumptions of official regularity and delivery have not been rebutted. * * * Accordingly, Settlement Officer Chapman properly determined that the petitioner[s] [were] precluded from disputing the underlying tax liability under section 6330(c)(2)(B). Petitioners filed a Response to respondent’s motion. In their Response, petitioners continue to focus on the underlying tax liability, but they do not deny receipt of the July 29, 2004 notice of deficiency. Hearing on Respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment Mrs. Manousos and counsel for respondent appeared at the hearing on respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment. At the hearing, Mrs. Manousos stated that petitioners were unable to specifically recall whether or not they had received the July 29, 2004 notice of deficiency.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007