# Is Refusal To Accept Certified Mail Fraud? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 23, 2013, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504 "2013-09-23T12:20:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/41 "2013-09-24T03:32:03Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I have attorneys and CPA’s to deal with them and they always do. For the record, while a Power of Attorney does get copies of all tax agency correspondence, I can tell you from experience that we sometimes get them waaaaaaay after you. Now, I’m sure it’s just a happy accident, but it happens often enough that I request that my clients 1: sign for and open all Certified letters from tax agencies and 2: shoot me a quick email or call and make sure I got the same one. There have been times we would have blown deadlines if we waited until I got my copy in the mail. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/42 "2013-09-24T05:29:20Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > The IRS sends really important stuff (like, the stuff that says-- yo, you’ve got 30 days or we’re levying the hell out of your bank account) via Certified Mail. Many taxpayers think that if they refuse the letter, nothing can go forward. > > Untrue. All the IRS has to do is prove that they mailed it, not that you received it. It isn’t their fault you refuse to check your mail. > > I suspect this is the case with other entities, too, but I can’t say for sure. Yeah, I’ll call bullshit on this. I just went through 2 examinations, colloquially known as audits. Nothing was sent certified. It went first class, nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/43 "2013-09-24T05:44:20Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > They’ll leave the little tag in your PO Box. You sign it, put it back in the box, and the next day they’ll put the letter in there, no? My postal cqarrer does the same at my house – leaves a little notice with the other mail. There is a line on that where I sign, and then leave that on the mailbox. The next day, that notice is gone, and the certified letter is in the box with my other mail. Quite easy & convient, no trips to a Post Office at all. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/44 "2013-09-24T11:48:11Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > Yeah, I’ll call bullshit on this. I just went through 2 examinations, colloquially known as audits. Nothing was sent certified. It went first class, nothing more. They don’t need to send things certified because as a giant entity they can use the mailbox rule to establish notice. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/45 "2013-09-24T12:56:37Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > Yeah, I’ll call bullshit on this. I just went through 2 examinations, colloquially known as audits. Nothing was sent certified. It went first class, nothing more. When we had some issues with the IRS all the notices did come certified. After we worked out a resolution, any communication came regular mail. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/46 "2013-09-24T14:58:46Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I hope it isn’t fraud. I have a personal policy to never sign for registered mail. I just let it go sit and the Post Office until it gets returned. I assume that whatever it is has the receipt for the sender’s benefit and not mine so I just refuse to play that game. They will have to find a more civil way to get the message to me if it is really that important. I have no idea what most of them were ever for. I’m not sure what the legal status of registered mail is in the USA, but it seems an extremely bad idea to me. In all likelihood, sending the registered mail put an end to the sender obligation to inform you of X. The sender will probably then proceed to do whatever the next step is after having informed you (send your debt to collections, sequester your money, start legal proceedings, share the estate between the remaining heirs, terminate you, whatever…) while you’ll have no clue that such a thing is happenning. If the law is similar to France (which I obviously don’t know) you’ll be assumed to have been properly informed, regardless of whether you accepted the mail, refused it, or ignored it, and this can have very serious legal consequences. You wrote " I assume that whatever it is has the receipt for the sender’s benefit and not mine so I just refuse to play that game", but this probably mean that the game will be played, but without you, since you won’t even be aware it started. You most certainly must make sure you’re aware of the exact legal consequences of sending/receiving/accepting/refusing a certified letter in your state/country. I would never refuse or ignore a registered letter. Doing so is akin to burying one’s head in the sand, only worse. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/47 "2013-09-24T15:22:08Z")
Exactly. There are very few circumstances where one side of a legal dispute has to absolutely contact the other. They generally only need to show the judge they made a good faith, reasonable best effort. Getting the post office (a neutral third party) to deliver to your best/last known address, and request proof of delivery, usually is sufficient. If you show up to a dispute (or show up late) and try to argue that you were not properly notified, you would have to explain why certified mail was not sufficient. “I don’t sign for stuff” or “I didn’t want to get out of bed” usually doesn’t fly as a rebuttal. the other side is not required to jump through flaming hoops to notify you. the only time where this might be logical is in avoiding service of a summons or other legal papers, for example to take a deposition or have you appear in court; but again, if the other side can show that you are actively refusing service (“Obviously someone home, but they drew the curtains and would not answer the door”) IIRC in most places, case law allows the judge to deem you served after sufficient effort. Then the next step is “default judgement”. If the judge thinks you are playing games with the court, then it may not go well; the only people he gets to hear is the other side. After that, refusing deliveries does not stop your bank accounts from being frozen, your car being towed or your door kicked in by the sherrif’s department. If someone is suing you, it’s best that you (a) know about it and (b) defend yourself in court as best you can. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/48 "2013-09-24T15:27:37Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I’m not sure what the legal status of registered mail is in the USA, but it seems an extremely bad idea to me. In all likelihood, sending the registered mail put an end to the sender obligation to inform you of X. Nope. At least in Colorado when notice is given that your property may be seized for back taxes. The judge used a storm drain analogy. He said if the treasurer saw the postman trow all the letters in the storm drain that he couldn’t claim that he mailed it so his job was over since he knew it had not been delivered. I’d have to relook up the case to know if the legal point in the actual case was he knew it was not delivered or he didn’t know if it was delivered. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/49 "2013-09-24T15:56:11Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > Yeah, I’ll call bullshit on this. I just went through 2 examinations, colloquially known as audits. Nothing was sent certified. It went first class, nothing more. My Bro was a IRS agent for 20 years. **DiosaBellissima** is correct. Altho audit notices are not sent certified, many other, even more important notices, such as a 90-day letter, are required to be sent certified mail. > **[Responding to a 90-day letter](https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2012/Oct/20126138.htm)** > > Under Sec. 6212(a) the IRS can issue a statutory notice of deficiency, also known as a 90-day letter, when it determines a deficiency in an income or estate and gift tax liability. A 90-day letter is a formal legal notice, sent by certified or... Under Sec. 6212(a) the IRS can issue a statutory notice of deficiency, also known as a 90-day letter, when it determines a deficiency in an income or estate and gift tax liability. A 90-day letter is a formal legal notice, sent by certified or registered mail. > **[4.8.9 Statutory Notices of Deficiency | Internal Revenue Service](https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-008-009)** A taxpayer must be formally notified by certified or registered mail when the Internal Revenue Service issues a notice of deficiency So, “bullshit” yourself. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/50 "2013-09-24T15:57:20Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Nope. At least in Colorado when notice is given that your property may be seized for back taxes. The judge used a storm drain analogy. He said if the treasurer saw the postman trow all the letters in the storm drain that he couldn’t claim that he mailed it so his job was over since he knew it had not been delivered. I’d have to relook up the case to know if the legal point in the actual case was he knew it was not delivered or he didn’t know if it was delivered. I assume there are special circumstances in places like Colorado, where it is not unreasonable for a property to be a vacation home or rural getaway and be unoccupied much of the time. Delivering something to that address may not reasonably be expected to notify the owner in a timely manner. A bank sticking a notice “in 30 days” in the door of a ski chalet in the middle of summer is obvious not sufficient or reasonable. (Which goes back to my point - when you finally show up and say “I was not notified” the judge will ask why the delivery was not sufficient. “I don’t live there” might work, depending on how easy it would have been to obtain your actual residence address.) from what little I know of courts, judges tend to have a limited patience for people who appear to be playing games with the system. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/51 "2013-09-24T15:57:52Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > And gets you the “I didn’t get it legal argument.” I found this out when my former landlord only gave a non-USPS mail box and when I sent legal paperwork and he didn’t show up, the judge said that since he didn’t sign for it, there was no proof he got served. Doesn’t work for IRS notices. They only have to prove they mailed it to the last known address. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/52 "2013-09-24T16:37:06Z")
Requirements for state and even individual federal laws will vary. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2013, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/53 "2013-09-24T22:57:35Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > Yeah, I’ll call bullshit on this. I just went through 2 examinations, colloquially known as audits. Nothing was sent certified. It went first class, nothing more. Ain’t talking about audits, sugar. Collections is a whole different world of magic and wonder. Certain things _must_ be sent Certified, which is why folks with tax debts tend to get a lot of Certified mail. The aforementioned Statutory Notice of Deficiency is probably the single most important letter in a tax debt case and it always comes Certified. I mean, unless you’re arguing that the IRS sends a giant stack of mail to my office every day Certified just for funsies (they also send a bunch _not_ Certified-- those are the letters that don’t require proof of mailing). > [@DrDeth](#): > > My Bro was a IRS agent for 20 years. **DiosaBellissima** is correct. Altho audit notices are not sent certified, many other, even more important notices, such as a 90-day letter, are required to be sent certified mail. > [Responding to a 90-day letter](http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2012/Oct/20126138.htm) > Under Sec. 6212(a) the IRS can issue a statutory notice of deficiency, also known as a 90-day letter, when it determines a deficiency in an income or estate and gift tax liability. A 90-day letter is a formal legal notice, sent by certified or registered mail. > [4.8.9 Statutory Notices of Deficiency | Internal Revenue Service](http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-008-009.html) > A taxpayer must be formally notified by certified or registered mail when the Internal Revenue Service issues a notice of deficiency > > So, “bullshit” yourself. Thank you, friend. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/54 "2013-09-26T00:32:25Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Nope. At least in Colorado when notice is given that your property may be seized for back taxes. The judge used a storm drain analogy. He said if the treasurer saw the postman trow all the letters in the storm drain that he couldn’t claim that he mailed it so his job was over since he knew it had not been delivered. I’d have to relook up the case to know if the legal point in the actual case was he knew it was not delivered or he didn’t know if it was delivered. This was Chief Justice John Roberts in Jones v. Flowers (2006). Arkansas had a law that before seizure of property for back taxes, a certified letter had to be sent to the owner’s last known address. The state sent a certified letter to a delinquent property tax owner that was returned as “undeliverable” and then sold his property. In a 5-4 decision holding that the law violated due process, Roberts said that this was akin to watching the postman throw the mail down the storm sewer. The holding was that when faced with this information, the state must do “more.” What that extra effort consisted of was left undefined, but Roberts suggested that a follow-up by first class mail would suffice. (Yeah, that confuses me too.) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/55 "2013-09-26T00:35:02Z")
The recipient doesn’t have to sign for first class mail so it disposes of the “I didn’t have time to go to the post office” argument. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/56 "2013-09-26T02:07:39Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > What that extra effort consisted of was left undefined, but Roberts suggested that a follow-up by first class mail would suffice. (Yeah, that confuses me too.) 1st class mail is forwarded, Certified is not. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/57 "2013-09-26T03:34:46Z")
I agree, but the idea of due process is that we want to make sure that the person receives notice. Certified mail that is returned shows that the person didn’t receive it, so we need to do more. Simply firing off a letter to that address that was previously deemed “undeliverable” seems to be a step backwards from actual notice. If I can’t sue a person for $40 in magistrate court without actual service, it shouldn’t be too much to ask for the same type of service to take a person’s property. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/58 "2013-09-26T06:45:44Z")
The claim was made that “really important stuff” is sent certified. Are you people suggesting that audits are not “really important?” ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/59 "2013-09-26T08:39:11Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > The claim was made that “really important stuff” is sent certified. Are you people suggesting that audits are not “really important?” I don’t think anyone made the claim that really important is _only_ sent certified. ---
**Author:** ![Yarster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/7c8e57/32.png) [@Yarster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yarster)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504/60 "2013-09-26T22:11:25Z")
I’m surprised everyone is so convinced that a judge considers an attempt to get a letter signed as opposed to actually getting it signed is acceptable. Here in California even for a small claims court action of a few hundred dollars, I was told I had to have proof of delivery. I had a dispute with a landscape guy years ago who took a significant upfront payment from me on the basis he needed it to purchase supplies for a project in our backyard. This ourdoor lighting project should have taken a weekend, but he decided to dig up our yard and leave it that way for three months. When I threatened to sue him if he didn’t either give me the supplies or refund the money I gave him, he decided to sue me for the remaining money on the job he never finished as a scare tactic to get me to leave him alone. He did so by sending me a certfied letter, which I signed for not knowing what it was. Naturally, he expected me to countersue him and would have refused a similar letter had I sent it to him. As such, the court recommended I hire a process server to get his signature, which are people who trick others into signing documents. Seth Rogan played this character in the movie ‘Knocked Up’. As such, while I cannot say how the legal system in the rest of the world, or even the other 49 states works, in California, I would say that getting a real signature for a lawsuit (even a crappy one for a few hundred dollars in Small Claims Court) is absolutely required and a judge won’t accept a “well you tried” apporach, unless you perhaps filmed the person refusing it while someone explained what was in the letter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-refusal-to-accept-certified-mail-fraud/669504.md?page=4)