T.C. Memo. 1996-449
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
MARGARET LOUGHRAN WEBB, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 22891-95. File October 2, 1996.
Margaret Loughran Webb, pro se.
John R. Hunter, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This case was assigned pursuant
to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and
182.1
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Respondent seeks dismissal on
1
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code,
as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
- NEXTRECORD -
the ground that the petition was not timely filed within the time
prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502. Petitioner
objects to respondent's motion on the ground that respondent did
not issue a valid notice of deficiency for any of the years
before the Court.2 The issues that we must decide are: (1)
Whether respondent actually mailed notices of deficiency for the
taxable years 1989 through 1993 to petitioner on January 24,
1995, and, if so, (2) whether such notices were mailed to
petitioner at her last known address.
Petitioner Margaret Loughran Webb (petitioner) resided in
Ivanhoe, Texas, at the time that her petition was filed with the
Court.
Background
On January 24, 1995, the date on which respondent
purportedly mailed notices of deficiency to petitioner for the
taxable years 1989 through 1993, petitioner's mailing address was
Route 1, Box 176-A2, Ivanhoe, Texas 75447.
Corine Brown (Ms. Brown) is the supervisor of the 90-day
unit of the Examination Division of the Internal Revenue Service
in Dallas, Texas (the 90-day unit). Ms. Brown held this position
on January 24, 1995.
2
Although petitioner has not cross-moved for dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction, an invalid notice of deficiency would
result in a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction but with a
different legal result from that of an untimely petition.
Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989), affd.
without published opinion 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991). We
discuss this matter further, infra pp. 8-9.
- NEXTRECORD -
The 90-day unit is responsible for issuing notices of
deficiency to taxpayers in the North Texas internal revenue
district. The 90-day unit is also responsible for determining
the last known addresses of taxpayers to whom such notices are
sent. Ivanhoe, Texas, is located within the North Texas internal
revenue district.
When a case arrives in the 90-day unit, it is assigned to a
reviewer who checks the file for accuracy. The file is then sent
to a data transcriber who, using a computer database, determines
the taxpayer's last known address for purposes of preparing and
mailing a notice of deficiency. If the data transcriber cannot
determine the taxpayer's last known address, he or she may list
several addresses to which duplicate copies of the notice of
deficiency should be sent. The case is thereafter returned to
the reviewer who, based on the available information, validates
the address or addresses to which the notice of deficiency should
be sent as identified by the data transcriber.
The reviewer then sends the file to a 90-day clerk. The 90-
day clerk is responsible for checking the correctness of the
notice of deficiency and ensuring that there is a duplicate copy
of the notice available to send to each address listed for a
taxpayer. Using information contained in the notice of
deficiency, the 90-day clerk copies onto the back of the
envelopes in which copies of the notice of deficiency will be
mailed, the taxable year or years placed in issue by the notice
- NEXTRECORD -
of deficiency.3 Each envelope is assigned a certified mail
number. The 90-day clerk inserts either the original notice of
deficiency or a duplicate copy thereof into each envelope to be
mailed to the taxpayer.4 The 90-day clerk retains an extra copy
of the notice of deficiency for the file maintained by the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
On occasion, the 90-day unit has failed to retain a copy of
a notice of deficiency for the IRS file because the 90-day clerk
inadvertently mailed all of the copies to the taxpayer.
In addition to preparing notices of deficiency for mailing,
the 90-day clerk is also responsible for mailing such notices to
taxpayers. Thus, using the information on the envelopes
containing each notice of deficiency, the clerk completes a
certified mail log using Postal Service Form 3877 (Form 3877).
Form 3877 identifies (1) each address to which the notices of
deficiency are mailed; (2) the taxable year or years placed in
issue by the notices of deficiency; and (3) the article number
reflecting the certified mail number of each envelope mailed to
the taxpayer. Then, the clerk delivers the envelopes containing
the notices of deficiency, accompanied by Form 3877, to the
3
Because of space limitations on the forms used, a single
notice of deficiency does not place in dispute more than 3
taxable years.
4
If the Commissioner's determinations involves more than 3
taxable years (see supra note 3), the 90-day clerk may insert
more than one notice of deficiency into the envelope to be mailed
to the taxpayer at a particular address.
- NEXTRECORD -
Postal Service. Once at the post office, a postal clerk verifies
the information on Form 3877 with the information reflected on
the envelopes containing the notices of deficiency. If the
information is accurate, the postal clerk stamps Form 3877 with a
U.S. Postal Service stamp indicating the current date and the
post office location.
In the instant case, respondent introduced into evidence the
Form 3877 completed by a 90-day clerk supervised by Ms. Brown.
The Form 3877 indicates that, on January 24, 1995, duplicate
notices of deficiency involving the taxable years 1989 through
1993 were mailed by certified mail to petitioner at the following
four addresses: (1) Route 1, Box 176A-2, Ivanhoe, Texas 75447;
(2) Route 1, Box 176AZ, Ivanhoe, Texas 75447; (3) Route 1, Box
76A-2, Ivanhoe, Texas 75447; and (4) 146 West 16th, Plano, Texas
75075. The Form 3877 is postmarked January 24, 1995, by the
Postal Service in Dallas, Texas.
Respondent has been unable to produce a copy of a notice of
deficiency for the taxable years 1989 through 1991. However,
respondent has produced a copy of a notice of deficiency for the
taxable years 1992 and 1993. Ms. Brown identified the notice of
deficiency for 1992 and 1993 as one originating from her unit.
The Postal Service facility in Ivanhoe, Texas, is a small
post office that has approximately 270 post office box customers.
Donna Russell (Ms. Russell) was the postmistress of the Ivanhoe
- NEXTRECORD -
post office from at least 1994 until June 1996 and personally
knew petitioner during that period.
When certified mail is received by the Ivanhoe post office
for delivery to a post office box customer, as in the present
case, a local mail carrier attempts to personally deliver the
letter to the addressee's home. If the addressee is not at home,
the mail carrier leaves a "yellow slip"; i.e., Postal Service
Form 3849 (Form 3849), in the addressee's mail box. Form 3849
notifies the addressee that the Ivanhoe post office is holding
certified mail addressed to him or her. The yellow slip
identifies the sender's name, the certified mail article number,
and the date, and includes a brief description of the item; e.g.,
letter, parcel, or large envelope.
Three Forms 3849 were completed with respect to the articles
of certified mail mailed by the IRS to petitioner in Ivanhoe,
Texas. The Forms 3849 indicate that all of the certified letters
addressed to petitioner in Ivanhoe, Texas, were delivered to the
Ivanhoe post office no later than February 1, 1995. Even though
each certified letter was mailed to petitioner at a slightly
different box number; i.e. Box 176A-2, Box 176AZ, and Box 76A-2,
Ms. Russell knew that the letters were intended for petitioner at
Box 176-A2, and she delivered them accordingly.
On or about February 1, 1995, petitioner visited the Ivanhoe
post office. Ms. Russell asked petitioner whether petitioner
wanted her certified mail. Petitioner refused delivery.
- NEXTRECORD -
Specifically, petitioner told Ms. Russell that petitioner was not
going to claim her certified mail and that petitioner did not
care what disposition Ms. Russell made of such mail.
Petitioner mailed her petition to this Court on October 31,
1995, which petition was received and filed by the Court on
November 6, 1995. The petition includes allegations that (1)
petitioner was never served with notices of deficiency for the
taxable years 1989 through 1993; (2) petitioner was totally
unaware of any such notices until after the expiration of the
time for timely filing a petition with this Court in respect of
such notices; and that, as a consequence of the foregoing, (3)
petitioner was denied her right to contest such notices.
Subsequently, respondent filed her Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction. Respondent contends that (1) notices of deficiency
for the taxable years 1989 through 1993 were issued to
petitioner; (2) such notices were mailed to petitioner at
petitioner's last known address and are therefore valid; and (3)
petitioner failed to file a timely petition for redetermination
with the Court in respect of such notices.
Discussion
This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency
depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a
timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner,
93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142,
147 (1988). Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes respondent,
- NEXTRECORD -
after determining a deficiency, to send a notice of deficiency to
a taxpayer by certified or registered mail. It is sufficient for
jurisdictional purposes if respondent mails the notice of
deficiency to a taxpayer at the taxpayer's "last known address".
Sec. 6212(b); Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 52 (1983).
If a notice of deficiency is mailed to a taxpayer at the
taxpayer's last known address, actual receipt of the notice is
immaterial. King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 679 (9th Cir.
1988), affg. 88 T.C. 1042 (1987); Keado v. United States, 853
F.2d 1209, 1211-1212 (5th Cir. 1988); Yusko v. Commissioner, 89
T.C. 806, 810 (1987); Frieling v. Commissioner, supra at 52. The
taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days (or 150 days under circumstances
not present herein) from the date that the notice of deficiency
is mailed to file a petition with this Court for a
redetermination of the deficiency. Sec. 6213(a).
In her motion to dismiss, respondent claims to have mailed
notices of deficiencies for the taxable years 1989 through 1993
to petitioner at petitioner's last known address on January 24,
1995. In view of the fact that the petition was not filed until
November 6, 1995, well after the expiration of the 90-day period
for filing a timely petition, it necessarily follows that we must
dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. The question
presented is whether the dismissal should be premised on
petitioner's failure to file a timely petition under section
6213(a) or on respondent's failure to issue valid notices of
- NEXTRECORD -
deficiency under section 6212. See Shelton v. Commissioner, 63
T.C. 193 (1974); O'Brien v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 543, 548
(1974); Heaberlin v. Commissioner, 34 T.C. 58, 59 (1960). If we
conclude that the petition is untimely, petitioner would be
precluded from challenging the merits of the deficiency in this
Court and would only be able to obtain judicial review of such
merits by paying the tax, filing a claim for refund with the IRS,
and if the claim is denied, suing for a refund in the appropriate
Federal District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Sec.
7422. However, if jurisdiction is lacking because of
respondent's failure to issue valid notices of deficiency, we
will dismiss the case on that ground, rather than for lack of a
timely filed petition. Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729,
735-736 (1989), affd. without published opinion 935 F.2d 1282 (3d
Cir. 1991); Weinroth v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 430, 435 (1980);
Keeton v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 377, 379 (1980).
As indicated, the parties initially disagree whether notices
of deficiency were, in fact, issued to petitioner and, if so,
whether they were mailed to petitioner at petitioner's last known
address. Respondent contends that a notice of deficiency for the
taxable years 1989 through 1991, and a second notice of
deficiency for the taxable years 1992 and 1993, were issued to
petitioner on January 24, 1995. Respondent also contends that
both notices of deficiency were mailed to petitioner at
petitioner's last known address.
- NEXTRECORD -
Petitioner contends that no notice of deficiency exists for
the taxable years 1989 through 1991, as evidenced by the fact
that respondent has been unable to produce a copy of any notice
for those years. Further, petitioner contends that if such
notice of deficiency exists, notices of deficiency for the
taxable years 1989 through 1993 were never mailed to her.
Finally, petitioner contends that even if notices of deficiency
for the taxable years 1989 through 1993 were mailed to her, such
notices were not mailed to her last known address.
As explained more fully below, we hold: (1) Respondent
presented sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a notice
of deficiency for the taxable years 1989 through 1991; (2)
respondent mailed notices of deficiency for the taxable years
1989 through 1993 on January 24, 1995; and (3) notices of
deficiency were mailed to petitioner at her last known address.
Respondent bears the burden of proving that she mailed
notices of deficiency to petitioner and the date on which the
notices were mailed. Pietanza v. Commissioner, supra at 736;
August v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1535, 1536 (1970). Respondent is
required to introduce evidence showing that notices of deficiency
were properly delivered to the Postal Service for mailing.
Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82, 90 (1990); see Cataldo v.
Commissioner, 60 T.C. 522 (1973), affd. per curiam 499 F.2d 550
(2d Cir. 1974). The act of mailing may be proven by evidence of
respondent's mailing practices corroborated by testimony or
- NEXTRECORD -
documentary evidence. Coleman v. Commissioner, supra, at 90.
Form 3877, reflecting Postal Service receipt, represents direct
documentary evidence of the date and fact of mailing. Magazine
v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 321, 324, 327 (1987). Absent evidence
to the contrary, a properly completed Form 3877 is highly
probative evidence that notices of deficiency were mailed on the
postmark date to the taxpayers listed on the form. Cataldo v.
Commissioner, supra at 524.
In the instant case, respondent introduced into evidence a
completed and postmarked Form 3877. Such form certifies that
notices of deficiency for the taxable years 1989 through 1993
were mailed to petitioner on January 24, 1995. Additionally,
respondent presented the testimony of Ms. Brown, who described
the established procedures surrounding the preparation and
mailing of the notices of deficiency. Based on these procedures,
we find it highly unlikely that Form 3877 would reflect that
notices of deficiency were mailed for specific taxable years if
notices did not in fact exist for such years. Similarly, we find
it highly unlikely that entries regarding notices of deficiency
would appear on Form 3877 if such notices were not actually
mailed. Notably, the information on Form 3877 was copied from
the envelopes containing the notices of deficiency that were
mailed to petitioner, and the information on those envelopes was
copied directly from the actual notices of deficiency enclosed
therein.
- NEXTRECORD -
In Pietanza v. Commissioner, supra, we held that respondent
failed to prove the existence of a notice of deficiency where
respondent was unable to produce a copy of the alleged notice of
deficiency. Critical to our decision in Pietanza was the fact
that the Commissioner failed to present any evidence
corroborating the existence of the notice of deficiency, except
for an uncertified Form 3877.
Petitioner's circumstances are distinguishable from those of
the taxpayer in Pietanza v. Commissioner, supra. In the instant
case, respondent presented a certified copy of Form 3877 and
corroborating evidence; i.e., Ms. Brown's testimony, proving the
existence of the notice of deficiency for the taxable years 1989
through 1991. Form 3877, coupled with the corroborating
testimony of Ms. Brown and the absence of contrary evidence
presented by petitioner, leads us to conclude that respondent has
satisfied her burden of proving (1) the existence of a notice of
deficiency for the taxable years 1989 through 1991 and (2) the
mailing to petitioner on January 24, 1995, of the notices of
deficiency for the taxable years 1989 through 1993. See Wiley v.
United States, 20 F.3d 222, 227 (6th Cir. 1994) ("Form 3877 is
highly probative evidence that the notice of deficiency was sent
by certified mail, and in the absence of contrary evidence is
sufficient to establish that fact."); Keado v. United States, 853
F.2d 1209, 1213 (5th Cir. 1988) (complete compliance with
established procedures concerning certified mail and the use of
- NEXTRECORD -
Form 3877 provides sufficient proof of mailing); United States v.
Zolla, 724 F.2d 808 (9th Cir. 1984) (where Government destroyed
all copies of the notice of deficiency, the Government proved
that the "notices and assessments were properly made" based on
Form 3877 and the absence of contrary evidence); United States v.
Ahrens, 530 F.2d 781 (8th Cir. 1976) (where all copies of the
notice of deficiency were lost, existence and mailing of the
notice of deficiency were proved based on Form 3877 and
supplemental evidence corroborating such form).
Finally, we address petitioner's contention that the notices
of deficiency were not mailed to petitioner at her last known
address. Petitioner argues that the notices are invalid because
they were mailed to Box 176A-2, Box 176AZ, and Box 76A-2, rather
than to Box 176-A2. We find the error in the notice of
deficiency addressed to petitioner at Box 176A-2 to be an
inconsequential error that does not compromise the validity of
the notice of deficiency. See Occean v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1991-439 (where a notice of deficiency mailed to 765 Amsterdam
Ave 2G, rather than to 765 Amsterdam Ave Apt 2G, the notice was
valid because taxpayers did not prove a delay in delivery);
McMullen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-455 (deficiency notice
was mailed to taxpayer's last known address, notwithstanding a
mistake in the spelling of the street name in the address to
which the notice was mailed); Kohilakis v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1989-366 (error in address of deficiency notice was so
- NEXTRECORD -
minor that it would not have prevented delivery); Riley v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-231 (same). Thus, we find that
respondent mailed at least one copy of the notices of deficiency
to petitioner at her last known address.
In any event, the errors in the address of the notices of
deficiency mailed to petitioner in Ivanhoe, Texas, were rendered
harmless by virtue of the fact that petitioner actually received
all three copies of the notices of deficiency. An erroneously
addressed notice of deficiency is valid if the taxpayer receives
actual notice of respondent's deficiency determination in a
timely fashion; i.e., without prejudicial delay. See Mulvania v.
Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67-68 (1983) (holding an erroneously
addressed notice valid under section 6212(a) where taxpayer
received the notice 16 days after it was mailed); Patmon & Young
Professional Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-143, affd. 55
F.3d 216 (6th Cir. 1995); Iacino v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1992-111 (where a notice of deficiency mailed to 6221 East 42nd
Avenue, rather than to 6211 East 42nd Avenue, resulted in actual
notice without prejudicial delay, the notice was valid although
misaddressed).
The record in the instant case reveals that petitioner was
presented with the notices of deficiency about a week after they
were mailed by respondent. Petitioner was directly asked by Ms.
Russell, the Ivanhoe postmistress, whether petitioner intended to
claim her certified mail, and petitioner refused delivery by
- NEXTRECORD -
telling Ms. Russell that Ms. Russell could make whatever
disposition she wished of petitioner's certified mail.
Accordingly, we find that petitioner received actual notice of
the notices of deficiency. Any errors attributable to respondent
with respect to the address appearing in such notices were
rendered harmless because of petitioner's refusal to claim her
certified mail. See Erhard v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-344,
affd. 87 F.3d 273 (9th Cir. 1996) (taxpayer could not defeat
actual notice by refusing delivery of deficiency notices).
Conclusion
Because notices of deficiency for the taxable years 1989
through 1993 were mailed to petitioner at her last known address,
and because petitioner filed her petition in respect of such
notices in an untimely fashion, we shall grant respondent's
motion to dismiss.5
In order to reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order of
dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
will be entered.
5
Our action in granting respondent's motion to dismiss will
render moot certain motions filed by petitioner. Also, as
previously mentioned, petitioner is not without a remedy even
though she cannot pursue her case in this Court. In short,
petitioner may pay the tax, file a claim for refund with the IRS,
and if the claim is denied, sue for a refund in the appropriate
Federal District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See
McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 (1970).