- 8 - informed petitioners that a notice of deficiency had been issued for 1999, petitioners repeatedly asked respondent for a copy of the notice and proof of delivery. When respondent was unable to provide such information, see supra note 1, petitioner visited the Bowie, Maryland, Post Office and asked a manager to conduct a search of the Post Office’s records for delivery information. The manager found no indication that the notice of deficiency had been delivered.2 Petitioners’ course of conduct indicates they would have sought review of the notice of deficiency had they received it. We therefore conclude that petitioners have rebutted the presumption of delivery. See Butti v. Commissioner, supra. Because respondent introduced no other evidence establishing that petitioners actually received the notice, we conclude that petitioners can challenge the underlying tax liability. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). Our standard of review is de novo. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 610. 2 As respondent notes, petitioner introduced no evidence concerning the length of time the Post Office maintains records of certified mail deliveries. Thus, respondent argues that petitioner’s failure to obtain delivery information may indicate only that the Post Office deleted such information from its files, and not that the Post Office failed to deliver the notice. We agree the absence of delivery information does not necessarily indicate that the notice was not delivered. Rather, we find petitioner’s visit to the Post Office to be further evidence of petitioners’ aggressiveness in challenging respondent’s determinations. See Butti v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-66.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007