COA: 234470, MTT: 00-245274

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 20, 2002 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REMAND to the Michigan Tax Tribunal for further proceedings consistent with this order. It is undisputed that the Tribunal mailed notice of the December 18, 2000 prehearing conference to the parties on December 8, 2000. Petitioner did not appear, and the Tribunal issued a sua sponte dismissal of the petition. Petitioner then filed a motion for reinstatement of the case, submitting affidavits stating that it did not receive the mailed notice of the December 18, 2000 prehearing conference. The Tribunal Chief Clerk provided an affidavit stating that the notice was mailed to petitioner's designated representative, and that the mailed notice was not returned as undeliverable. The Tribunal denied the petitioner's motion to reinstate, relying on the fact that notice had been mailed to petitioner and that the notice was not returned as undeliverable. The Tribunal did not determine that petitioner had actual knowledge of the scheduled conference. While a presumption arises that a letter with a proper address and postage will, when placed in the mail, be delivered by the postal service, this presumption can be rebutted with evidence that the letter was not received. Barstow v. Federal Life Ins. Co., 259 Mich. 125, 129; 242 N.W. 862 (1932); Farmers Handy Wagon Co. v. Newcomb, 192 Mich. 634, 638; 159 N.W. 152 (1916). If such evidence is presented, as it was here, then a question of fact arises regarding whether the letter was received. Id. The Tribunal abused its discretion when it denied petitioner's motion to reinstate the case without first resolving the disputed issues of fact created by petitioner's affidavits. Accordingly, we remand this case to the Tribunal for an evidentiary hearing. The Tribunal should resolve the disputed issues of fact and then determine whether the petitioner showed good cause to reinstate the case.

We do not retain jurisdiction.