- 7 -
the lawyer for mail delivery were used, delivery would have been
on June 22, 1995, but was not until June 26, 1995. Therefore,
clearly, delivery was not within the normal time for mailing if
in fact the envelope containing the petition was mailed on June
15, 1995, as petitioner contends.
Since the final date for filing the petition was not until
June 19, 1995, we specifically asked petitioner's attorney to
state whether petitioner was contending that receipt in the
normal time from June 19, 1995, would cause the filing date of
the petition to be timely. Petitioner made no argument in this
regard. However, the delivery date of June 26 was not within the
normal time for transmission of mail from Birmingham, Alabama, to
Washington, D.C., in June 1995, according to the experience of
the U.S. Postal Service, for a document mailed on June 19, 1995.
However, since the actual private metered postmark date was June
15 and the testimony is that June 15 was the date of mailing, it
would appear that normal receipt would be judged from that date.
It is certainly unfortunate that a petition purportedly
mailed 4 days before the 90th day after the mailing of the notice
of deficiency was not received by the Court until the 11th day
after its mailing. However, since petitioner used a private
metered postmark rather than taking the envelope to the post
office and having it postmarked, the regulations have not been
complied with in this case since petitioner has not shown that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011