- 6 - Postal Service certified mailing list reflecting delivery of a document by the Commissioner to the Postal Service represents direct evidence of mailing. August v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1535, 1536-1537 (1970); Hovind v. Commissioner, supra. Respondent introduced the testimony of a settlement officer who described respondent’s mailing practices. Respondent also introduced a certified mailing list indicating that a notice of deficiency had been mailed to petitioners at their address in Bowie, Maryland. The settlement officer testified there was no indication of irregularity in the preparation or mailing of the notice of deficiency.1 We find that respondent properly mailed the notice of deficiency to petitioners’ last known address. A presumption of delivery therefore arises. See Zenco Engg. Corp. v. Commissioner, supra. We conclude, however, that petitioners have rebutted the presumption of delivery. Our conclusion is based on petitioner’s credible testimony as well as their history of 1 The settlement officer acknowledged that respondent’s administrative file did not contain a copy of the notice that was sent to petitioners. The Commissioner’s failure to produce a copy of a notice of deficiency may indicate that no notice was mailed. See Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989), affd. without published opinion 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991). However, that is not necessarily the case where, as here, the Commissioner introduces a copy of a certified mailing list and the corroborating testimony of an Internal Revenue Service employee. See Webb v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-449. Because petitioners concede the notice was mailed, we need not address this issue further.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007