Lois Anderson v. United States (1992)

But see Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1992) ; Estate of Wood v. Commissioner, 909 F.2d 1155 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding the enactment of section 7502 had no effect on the common law presumption of delivery).

Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.1992).

In both Wood and Anderson , there was plenty of time for the documents to arrive “in the ordinary course.” 12 See Anderson, 966 F.2d at 488 (stating that taxpayer claimed return was mailed on September 15, 1986, where the statutory period expired on April 15,1988); Wood, 909 F.2d at 1157 & n. 3 (noting that the return was due on March 22 and was allegedly mailed and postmarked on March 19).

Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 489 (9th Cir.1992). 26 DeLoretto's contention that a lien must be released if it is legally unenforceable is contrary to the plain language of section 6325.

See Estate of Wood v. Comm’r, 909 F.2d 1155, 1159-61 (8th Cir.1990); Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 489-91 (9th Cir.1992).

See Estate of Wood v. Comm’r, 909 F.2d 1155, 1159-61 (8th Cir. 1990); Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 489-91 (9th Cir. 1992).

"Under the common law mailbox rule, proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that it is received by the addressee." Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.1992) (citing Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U.S. 185, 193-94 , 4 S.Ct. 382 , 28 L.Ed. 395 (1884)).

However, even if it did, BankAmerica's simple statement that Schikore's form is not presently contained in its files is insufficient to constitute a "specific factual denial of receipt." 8 See Anderson v. United States , 966 F.2d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 1992) (rejecting, as not credible, government's rebuttal evidence which consisted of records of non-receipt); Jones v. United States, 226 F.2d 24, 27 (9th Cir. 1955) ("The showing that a search of the pertinent files in the [addre…

Similarly, in Anderson the court required "direct proof of a timely postmark." Anderson, 966 F.2d at 491 (testimony from one who viewed postal clerk mark the envelope). 22 With a single exception, 2 the only evidence of mailing found in the joint appendix or proffered by SMA is the dates that SMA itself listed on its motions.

Similarly, in Anderson the court required “direct proof of a timely postmark.” Anderson, 966 F.2d at 491 (testimony from one who viewed postal clerk mark the envelope).

Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 489 (9th Cir.1992).

Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 490 (9th Cir. 1992); see United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73, 76 (1916).

See, e.g., Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n—Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n Pension Fund v. Comm’r, 523 F.3d 140, 150 (3d Cir.2008) (reasoning that Congress's intent in enacting § 7502 “was to supplement, not supplant, [the] means by which taxpayers can timely file documents with the IRS''); Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.1992) (“[W]e decline to read section 7502 as carving out exclusive exceptions to the old common law physical delivery rule.”).

The “proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that [the document] is received by the addressee.” Carroll v. Comm’r, 71 F.3d 1228, 1232 (6th Cir.1995) (quoting Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.1992)).

See id. at 1194–95; Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 1992); Estate of Wood v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 909 F.2d 1155 , 1159–61 (8th Cir. 1990).7 7 In Estate of Wood, the Eighth Circuit Court held that a taxpayer relying on § 7502(a)(1) enjoys a presumption of delivery upon proof of postmark (at least, it seems, where the 21 We do not deal with such an “intra-§ 7502” mailbox rule evidence goes beyond the taxpayer’s own, self-serving testimony), notwit…

See id. at 1194-95; Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.1992); Estate of Wood v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 909 F.2d 1155, 1159-61 (8th Cir.1990). 7 We do not deal with such an “intra- § 7502” mailbox rule here.

If the Service claims it never received the document, a taxpayer can prove timely mailing by pointing to the postmark date on the certified or registered mail receipt he got when he mailed the document. 26 U.S.C. § 7502 (c)(1) & (2); Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 490 (9th Cir.1992); Carroll v. Comm’r, 71 F.3d 1228, 1230-31 (6th Cir.1995); Internal Revenue Serv., Dep't of the Treasury, Your Federal Income Tax (Publication 17) 11 (2001).

Under the common law Mailbox Rule, "proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that it is received by the addressee." Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.1992); see also Meckel v. Continental Resources Co., 758 F.2d 811, 817 (2d Cir.1985) (properly mailed computer-generated notices can be presumed received). 28 The Mahons argue that their receipt of the September 21, 1995 Notice cannot be presumed because, they contend, a genuin…

Under the common law Mailbox Rule, “proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that it is received by the addressee.” Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.1992); see also Meckel v. Continental Resources Co., 758 F.2d 811, 817 (2d Cir.1985) (properly mailed computer-generated notices can be presumed received).

See Nikwei v. Ross School of Aviation, 822 F.2d 939 , 941 (10th Cir.1987); Godfrey v. United States, 997 F.2d 335, 338 (7th Cir.1993); Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.1992).

See Nikwei v. Ross School of Aviation, 822 F.2d 939, 941 (10th Cir. 1987); Godfrey v. United States, 997 F.2d 335, 338 (7th Cir. 1993); Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 1992).

Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 489 (9th Cir.1992).

See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994); Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.1992).

Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.1992).

In Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.1992), the court expressed itself as follows: “... we agree with the Eighth Circuit that enactment of section 7502 did not displace the common law presumption of delivery.

Anderson v. U.S., 966 F.2d 487, 489 (9th Cir.1992).

Under the common law mailbox rule, proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that it is received by the addressee. 5 Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491-92 (9th Cir.1992) (citing Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U.S. 185, 193-94 , 4 S.Ct. 382, 386 , 28 L.Ed. 395 (1884)).

Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 489 (9th Cir.1992). 45 Furutani argues that 18 U.S.C.

Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 , 289 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. 1781 , 1791 n. 19, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982); Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 489 (9th Cir.1992).

Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 489 (9th Cir.1992).

Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 489 (9th Cir.1992). 25 C.F.R.

See Sorrentino, 383 F.3d at 1187 (finding that the production of a registered, certified, or electronic mail receipt was not the only means by which a taxpayer could establish timely delivery but declined to 25 endorse the common law mailbox rule based solely upon a taxpayer's uncorroborated self-serving testimony of mailing); Anderson, 966 F.2d at 492 ("the language of [section] 7502 does not set forth an exclusive limitation on admissible evidence to prove timely mailing a…

Crude Oil Corp. of America v. Commissioner, 161 F.2d 809, 810 (10th Cir.1947); Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.1992); Arkansas Motor Coaches v. Commissioner, 198 F.2d 189, 191 (8th Cir.1952).

Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 489, 491 (9th Cir.1992).

See Anderson, 966 F.2d at 489 (“As applied to the facts of Anderson’s case, the language of section 7502 does not set forth an exclusive limitation on admissible evidence to prove timely mailing and does not preclude application of the common law mailbox rule.”).

E.g., Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 489 (9th Cir.1992). 3 .

See id. at 1197–99 (10th Cir. 25 2004) (Seymour, J., dissenting) (contrasting Ninth and Tenth Circuit precedent); see also 26 Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Under the common law mailbox rule, proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that 27 it is received by the addressee.”); Schikore, 269 F.3d at 963 (“[T]he presumption of receipt established by the mailbox rule [is applied] precisely to avoid the type of sweari…

The Ninth Circuit initially held that § 7502 did not supplant the common law mailbox rule, Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 490 (9th Cir. 1992); however, following the amendment of Treasury Regulation § 301.7502-1, the court held that § 7502 provides the sole exceptions to the physical delivery rule, Baldwin, 921 F.3d 836 at 843–844.

A. Importantly, while Defendants state in conclusory fashion that they infallibly maintain records of all grievances and appeals, they do not specifically represent that the CORC print-out is a log of all incoming mail, or describe Defendants’ mail-processing practices in a manner that would support an inference that the 7 In a variety of legal contexts, Courts adjudicate disputes over whether a letter was sent or received by employing the “mailbox rule,” according to which …

See, e.g., Sorrentino v. IRS, 383 F.3d 1187, 1193-94 (10th Cir. 2004); Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491-92 (9th Cir. 1992) (ruling that taxpayer could prove timely filing through extrinsic evidence); Estate of Wood v. Comm’r, 909 F.2d 1155, 1160-61 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that I.R.C. § 7502 does not bar admission of extrinsic evidence to prove timely mailing of a federal income tax return).

No. 37 at 3.) This is unavailing. 8 Ferguson does not offer legal authority or any facts to support this position. “[P]roper and timely 9 mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that it is received by the addressee.” 10 Baldwin v. United States, 932 F.3d 836 , 840 (9th Cir. 2019); Nunley v. City of L.A. 52 F.3d 792 , 11 796 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491-92 (9th Cir. 1992) 12 (overruled on other grounds).

See In re Boedecker, 161 B.R. 502, 506 (Bankr.D.Mont.1993); Anderson v. U.S., 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.1992) adopting Wood v. Commissioner, 909 F.2d 1155, 1157 (8th Cir.1990).

In Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 490-92 (9th Cir. 1992), the Ninth Circuit held that although section 7502 created a statutory mailbox rule, it did not displace the common law mailbox rule that the proper mailing of an envelope creates a rebuttable presumption of its receipt.

In Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 490-92 (9th Cir. 1992), the Ninth Circuit held that although section 7502 created a statutory mailbox rule, it did not displace the common-law mailbox rule that the proper mailing of an envelope creates a rebuttable presumption of its receipt.

Ed. 432 (1885) (adopting the rule that “allows usage and the course of business to be shown for the purpose of raising a prima facie presumption of fact in aid of collateral testimony”); Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 1992) (allowing extrinsic evidence of taxpayer’s testimony that she watched the postal clerk stamp her document and affidavit of friend accompanying her to the post office to provide proof of postmark to show a timely mailing); Vill. of …

Co. v. Pendleton, 115 U.S. 339, 347 , 6 S.Ct. 74 , 29 L.Ed. 432 (1885) (adopting the rule that "allows usage and the course of business to be shown for the purpose of raising a prima facie presumption of fact in aid of collateral testimony"); Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.1992) (allowing extrinsic evidence of taxpayer's testimony that she watched the postal clerk stamp her document and affidavit of friend accompanying her to the post office to provide…

See Knickerbocker Life Ins. v. Pendleton, 115 U.S. 339, 347 , 6 S.Ct. 74 , 29 L.Ed. 432 (1885) (adopting the rule that “allows usage and the course of business to be shown for the purpose of raising a prima facie presumption of fact in aid of collateral testimony”); Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.1992) (allowing extrinsic evidence of taxpayer’s testimony that she watched the postal clerk stamp her document and affidavit of friend accompanying her to th…

Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 489 (9th Cir.1992); Estate of Wood, 909 F.2d at 1160.

Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 489 (9th Cir.1992).

Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491-2 (9th Cir.1992); Estate of Wood v. Commissioner, 909 F.2d 1155 (8th Cir.1990).