After reading the recent Robin J. Fowler v. Commissioner (155 TC No. 7), I have two questions...
First, is there ever a reason to use, or advise a client to use, Return Receipt in addition to Certified Mail Receipt? Treas Reg §301.7502-1(e)(2)(i) tells us:
In the case of a document (but not a payment) sent by registered or certified mail, proof that the document was properly registered or that a postmarked certified mail sender's receipt was properly issued and that the envelope was properly addressed to the agency, officer, or office constitutes prima facie evidence that the document was delivered to the agency, officer, or office. Other than direct proof of actual delivery, proof of proper use of registered or certified mail, and proof of proper use of a duly designated PDS as provided for by paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section, are the exclusive means to establish prima facie evidence of delivery of a document to the agency, officer, or office with which the document is required to be filed. No other evidence of a postmark or of mailing will be prima facie evidence of delivery or raise a presumption that the document was delivered.
It would seem to me that Return Receipt is wholly unnecessary based on the above. That a postmarked certified receipt, and maybe a scan of the addressed envelope before it is sent would be sufficient. What are your thoughts?
Second, in Fowler, the petitioner's CPA firm mailed in a paper filing for which petitioner e-signed the return ("Second Submission"). The e-signature stamp was attached to the return. The court did not examine whether this second submission constituted a signed and properly filed tax return, as they found the first submission did. Therefore, examining the second submission was unnecessary.
Is the above an acceptable method for a client to sign a paper filed return?