Mailing evidence may establish delivery without formal IRS procedures

Plain-English summary

Chief Counsel addressed how the IRS can prove mailing and delivery of documents in a FATCA-related penalty matter. The common-law mailbox rule creates a rebuttable presumption of receipt from proper and timely mailing. A separate presumption of official regularity applies when the IRS shows exact compliance with established official mailing procedures, such as through a properly completed USPS Form 3877. If the IRS has no established procedures for mailing documents under Treas. Reg. § 1.1471-3(e)(2), that official-regularity presumption does not apply. The Service may still prove mailing through other sufficient evidence and obtain a presumption of actual delivery. For domestic correspondence, certified-mail records can provide proof of mailing and delivery, subject to rebuttal.

Ruling snapshot

• Question: How may the IRS establish mailing and delivery when it lacks formal procedures for documents sent under the FATCA regulation?
• Outcome: Advice given, official regularity requires established procedures, but other mailing evidence may support the mailbox-rule presumption
• Key authorities: Treas. Reg. § 1.1471-3(e)(2); Schikore v. BankAmerica Supplemental Ret. Plan; Ruddy v. Commissioner; Coleman v. Commissioner; Portwine v. Commissioner

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2025051609591500 [Third Party Communication:

UILC: 6651.00-00, 6721.00-00, Date of Communication: Month DD, YYYY]

      6722.00-00

Number: 202534003
Release Date: 8/22/2025
From: -----------------------
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2025 10:16:59 AM
To: -------------------------
Cc: ------------------------
Bcc:
Subject: Re: Request for assistance on 6651 & 6721/6722 penalties and FATCA

The common law mailbox rule provides that the proper and timely mailing of a document
raises a rebuttable presumption that the document has been received by the addressee
in the usual time. Schikore v. BankAmerica Supplemental Ret. Plan, 269 F.3d 956, 961
(9th Cir. 2001) (citing Hagner v. U.S., 285 U.S. 427, 430 (1932)).

In the deficiency procedure context, the Service relies on the presumption of regularity to
establish the timely mailing of a SNOD. The presumption of official regularity generally
applies to IRS actions that are required to comply with official procedure. If the IRS
follows its own procedures, then it is entitled to the presumption of official regularity. See
Ruddy v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo. 2017-39, aff'd., 727 F. App'x 777 (4th
Cir. 2018) (“A properly completed USPS Form 3877 represents direct documentary
evidence of the date and fact of mailing and demonstrates IRS compliance with its
established procedures for sending deficiency notices. Exact compliance with the Form
3877 mailing procedures raises in favor of the IRS a presumption of official regularity that
shifts the burden of going forward to the taxpayer.”) (internal citations omitted); Coleman
v. Comm'r, 94 T.C. 82, 90 (1990) (“A properly completed Postal Service Form 3877 also
reflects compliance with IRS established procedures for mailing deficiency notices. […]
More specifically, exact compliance with the Form 3877 mailing procedures raises a
presumption of official regularity in favor of respondent. […] To prevail, petitioners must
rebut the presumption by affirmatively showing that respondent failed to follow his
established procedures.”) (internal citations omitted). In the absence of established
mailing procedures to comply with Treas. Reg. § 1.1471-3(e)(2), this presumption would
not apply.

If there are no established procedures to create a presumption of regularity, the Service
may still be entitled to a presumption of actual delivery based on evidence of mailing the
documents. See Portwine v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2015-29, aff'd, 668 F. App'x 838 (10th
Cir. 2016) (“Petitioner correctly points out that respondent is not entitled to the
presumption of official regularity in this case because the certified mailing lists are
incomplete. Respondent may still prevail, however, if the evidence of mailing is otherwise
sufficient.”) (finding that the dated copies of the notices of deficiency combined with
2

incomplete certified mailing lists were sufficient to show that the notices of deficiency
were sent to the taxpayer’s last known address.); Ruddy, T.C. Memo. 2017-39 at *5
(“Even if the presumption of official regularity were somehow thought inapplicable here,
respondent would still prevail because he has provided ‘otherwise sufficient’ evidence of
mailing.”). For domestic mail, the IRS sends correspondence through certified mail as it
provides proof of mailing and delivery. The Service can use the mailing and delivery
receipts to establish the presumption of the mailbox rule, in which there is a presumption
that certified mail sent to the last known address is treated as delivered unless there is
evidence to rebut that presumption.