- 6 -
Here, if we accept that petitioner has shown that the
document was actually deposited in the mail in time to be
collected from the place of deposit on or before the last day
prescribed for filing, we cannot under these regulations find
that the petition was timely mailed, since petitioner has not
shown that the delay in delivery was attributable to delay in the
transmission of the mail or, if any such delay occurred, the
reason therefor.
Petitioner's first argument is that the document deposited
in the mail was actually received in the ordinary time required
for documents to be received in Washington from Birmingham.
However, if we accept the June 15th postmark which was on the
envelope in which the petition was mailed, and the testimony of
petitioner's witnesses as showing June 15, 1995, as the date of
mailing of the petition, the petition should have been received
in Washington on Monday, June 19, 1995, the 90th day after the
mailing of the notice of deficiency. If Saturday and Sunday are
not counted in the time of normal receipt of mail, it would
normally have been received at least by June 20, 1995. We take
the Postal Service's statement of the normal time for delivery of
mail since, in our view, the experience of one lawyer primarily
with mail addressed to one Government agency, even though the
occurrence may be frequent, is not sufficient proof of the normal
time for delivery of mail. However, if the time experienced by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011