However, rule 902(11) of the Federal Rules of Evidence contains a notice requirement: A party intending to offer a record into evidence "[b]efore the trial or hearing * * * must give an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record—and must make the record and certification available for inspection—so that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge them." The Advisory Committee Notes accompanying the 2000 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence, which added paragraphs (11) and (12) to rule 902, state: "The notice requirement in Rules 902(11) and (12) is intended to give the opponent of the evidence a full opportunity to test the adequacy of the foundation set forth in the declaration." Although the rule does not establish what notice is sufficient to provide a fair opportunity, the time must be of such duration that the evidence "can be vetted for objection or impeachment in advance." United States v. Brown, 553 F.3d 768">553 F.3d 768, 553 F.3d 768">793 (5th Cir. 2008). 2012 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 50">*56 Failure to provide before trial notice that a party intends to introduce documents as self-authenticating "violates both the letter and the spirit of Rule 902(11) and provides the party opposing admission with substantially no opportunity to verify the authenticity of either the records or any foundational testimony or affidavits." United States v. Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062">420 F.3d 1062, 420 F.3d 1062">1072 (9th Cir. 2005). Rule 902(11) of the Federal Rules of Evidence does not contain an exception to the notice requirement. 420 F.3d 1062">Id. at 1072 n.7.

In the instant case, respondent failed to provide notice before trial that he intended to seek the admission of the tracking printouts as self-authenticating documents pursuant to rule 902(11) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Because respondent failed to provide such notice, had he attempted to introduce the tracking printouts at trial, they would have been inadmissible. SeeFed. R. Evid. 902(11); Brown, 553 F.3d 768">553 F.3d at 793; Weiland, 420 F.3d 1062">420 F.3d at 1072. But respondent failed to introduce the tracking printouts at trial and instead seeks to reopen the record after trial to introduce evidence that would have been inadmissible even had he sought to introduce it at trial. We will deny 2012 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 50">*57 respondent's motion to reopen the record. ⁴

Section 6212(a) provides that if the Commissioner determines that there is a deficiency in income tax, "he is authorized to send notice of such deficiency to the taxpayer by certified mail or registered mail." The notice of deficiency is "sufficient" if mailed to the taxpayer at his last known address unless the Commissioner has been properly notified under section 6903 of the existence of a fiduciary relationship. Sec. 6212(b)(1); Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42">81 T.C. 42, 81 T.C. 42">52 (1983). 2012 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 50">*58 If the notice of deficiency is mailed to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known address, actual receipt of the notice is immaterial. King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676">857 F.2d 676, 857 F.2d 676">679 (9th Cir. 1988), aff'g88 T.C. 1042">88 T.C. 1042 (1987); Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42">81 T.C. 52. If the notice is addressed to a person in the United States, the taxpayer has 90 days after the mailing of the notice to file a petition in this Court to redetermine the deficiency. Sec. 6213(a).

This Court has jurisdiction to redetermine tax deficiencies only when the Commissioner issues a notice of deficiency and the taxpayer files a timely petition for redetermination of that deficiency. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22">93 T.C. 22, 93 T.C. 22">27 (1989). The Commissioner bears the burden of proving by competent and persuasive evidence that the notice of deficiency was properly mailed. Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82">94 T.C. 82, 94 T.C. 82">90 (1990). The act of mailing may be proved by documentary evidence of mailing or by evidence of the Commissioner's mailing practices corroborated by direct testimony. 94 T.C. 82">Id. at 90; Magazine v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 321">89 T.C. 321, 89 T.C. 321">324 (1987). A Form 3877 reflecting postal receipt represents direct documentary evidence of the 2012 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 50">*59 date and the fact of mailing. Magazine v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 321">89 T.C. 324, 327. A properly completed Form 3877 also reflects compliance with IRS established procedures for mailing deficiency notices. Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82">94 T.C. 90. Exact compliance with the Form 3877 mailing procedures raises a presumption of official regularity in favor of the Commissioner. United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808">724 F.2d 808, 724 F.2d 808">810 (9th Cir. 1984); Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82">94 T.C. 91.

Where a Form 3877 does not indicate the number of items received by the Postal Service or does not bear the signature or initials of a Postal Service employee, it is insufficient to provide the Commissioner with the presumption of mailing. Massie v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-173, aff'd without published opinion, 82 F.3d 423">82 F.3d 423 (9th Cir. 1996); Wheat v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-268. A failure to have the Postal Service clerk initial the Form 3877 and indicate how many pieces of mail were received is an "inexactitude which is significant enough to render the presumption inapplicable." Wheat v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-268. However, such oversights will not be fatal if the Commissioner can produce other evidence sufficient 2012 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 50">*60 to prove mailing. Keado v. United States, 853 F.2d 1209">853 F.2d 1209, 853 F.2d 1209">1214 (5th Cir. 1988); Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82">94 T.C. 91.

In the instant case, the Form 3877 respondent submitted is incomplete because there is no indication of the number of items received by the Postal Service and because it does not bear the signature or initials of a Postal Service employee. Accordingly, the Form 3877 is insufficient to provide respondent with the presumption of mailing. See Massie v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-173; Wheat v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-268. Because respondent failed to produce any other admissible evidence to prove that the notice of deficiency was mailed, he has failed to carry his burden of proving that the notice was properly mailed. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction because the record does not establish that a notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioner in accordance with section 6212. Consequently, we will dismiss the instant case for lack of jurisdiction.

In reaching these holdings, we have considered all the parties' arguments, and, to the extent not addressed herein, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order 2012 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 50">*61 and order of dismissal will be entered.