- 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 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007