- 9 -
have never denied receipt, see Rule 121(d), and Mrs. Manousos
candidly admitted at the hearing that petitioners could not
recall whether or not they had received the notice of
deficiency.4 Moreover, other notices and letters, such as the
final notice, the settlement officer’s correspondence, and the
notice of determination were all sent to petitioners at the same
address as the notice of deficiency, and all such notices and
letters were received by petitioners.
In Zenco Engg. Corp. v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 318, 323
(1980), affd. without published opinion 673 F.2d 1332 (7th Cir.
1981), we held that “There is a strong presumption in the law
that a properly addressed letter will be delivered, or offered
for delivery, to the addressee.” Further, it is clear that in
general, and in the absence of 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. See 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).
4 Respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment, and to a lesser
extent the settlement officer’s attachment to the notice of
determination, make plain respondent’s view that petitioners did,
in fact, receive the July 29, 2004 notice of deficiency. Thus,
petitioners had every incentive to contest that matter if it were
not factually accurate.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007