Could someone explain the "presumption of delivery" vs IRC sections requiring registered/certified mail?
If the IRS issues certain notices, the law requires the notice to be issued via registered/certified mail.
Yet if a refund check is sent, it is presumed to be delivered without similar proof such as registered or certified mail.
I can't find the presumption of delivery in the law. Is it there?
Presumption of delivery
-
fortinbras
- Princeps Wooloosia
- Posts: 3144
- Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 pm
Re: Presumption of delivery
Yes, and it's recognized in law. If a letter is mailed, via the US Postal (here comes the funny part) Service, to the last known address of someone, and the USPS doesn't return it to its sender, then the letter is presumed to have been received by its intended addressee.
It's not a very strong presumption, however, and can be overcome.
It's not a very strong presumption, however, and can be overcome.
-
Judge Roy Bean
- Judge for the District of Quatloosia
- Posts: 3704
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
- Location: West of the Pecos
Re: Presumption of delivery
In my experience it is essentially bullet-proof in terms of the IRS.fortinbras wrote:Yes, and it's recognized in law. If a letter is mailed, via the US Postal (here comes the funny part) Service, to the last known address of someone, and the USPS doesn't return it to its sender, then the letter is presumed to have been received by its intended addressee.
It's not a very strong presumption, however, and can be overcome.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
-
Kimokeo
Re: Presumption of delivery
http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports ... 155fr.html
"From two judgmental samples of IRS notices sent to and returned by taxpayers whose refund checks were returned by the USPS as undeliverable, we found that some taxpayers indicated that the address to which the notice was mailed was, in fact, their current address. Working with the IRS, we determined that many of the notices were not sent to the same addresses as the original undelivered refund checks because these taxpayers had address changes posted to their accounts between the time the original refund checks were issued and the time the checks were returned as undeliverable. "
"Employees at the IRS Campus[7] in Ogden, Utah, advised us that some large-dollar refund checks (in excess of $1 million) returned to the IRS as undeliverable appeared to have been subsequently reissued to taxpayers at the same addresses from which the checks had been originally returned as undeliverable. This seemed to indicate that some checks were being unnecessarily returned as undeliverable by the USPS."
August 28, 2008 is the date of this report.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0152001.pdf
"Taxpayer is not entitled to overpayment interest because the delay in the delivery of
the refund check was not due to any fault of the government and because under the
presumption of delivery, the Service tendered the refund check to Taxpayer within 45
days after the return was filed."
Is the terminology correct? Does the law state, "not due to any fault of the IRS" or "not due to any fault of the government"?
If the US Postal Service, a Government Agency, fails to deliver and the TIGTA report indicates this does occur, is "presumption of delivery" out-of-date and should there be an exception when the reissuance is to the same address as indicated in the report?
"From two judgmental samples of IRS notices sent to and returned by taxpayers whose refund checks were returned by the USPS as undeliverable, we found that some taxpayers indicated that the address to which the notice was mailed was, in fact, their current address. Working with the IRS, we determined that many of the notices were not sent to the same addresses as the original undelivered refund checks because these taxpayers had address changes posted to their accounts between the time the original refund checks were issued and the time the checks were returned as undeliverable. "
"Employees at the IRS Campus[7] in Ogden, Utah, advised us that some large-dollar refund checks (in excess of $1 million) returned to the IRS as undeliverable appeared to have been subsequently reissued to taxpayers at the same addresses from which the checks had been originally returned as undeliverable. This seemed to indicate that some checks were being unnecessarily returned as undeliverable by the USPS."
August 28, 2008 is the date of this report.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0152001.pdf
"Taxpayer is not entitled to overpayment interest because the delay in the delivery of
the refund check was not due to any fault of the government and because under the
presumption of delivery, the Service tendered the refund check to Taxpayer within 45
days after the return was filed."
Is the terminology correct? Does the law state, "not due to any fault of the IRS" or "not due to any fault of the government"?
If the US Postal Service, a Government Agency, fails to deliver and the TIGTA report indicates this does occur, is "presumption of delivery" out-of-date and should there be an exception when the reissuance is to the same address as indicated in the report?