Herman W. Beacham - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         

          there was a delay in the transmission of the mail to which the              
          delay in delivery was attributable and since petitioner has not             
          shown any reason for the delay in the transmission of the mail if           
          there was such a delay.  Petitioner in effect argues that since             
          there was a delay in the mail with respect to the envelope                  
          containing his petition, the late receipt of the petition was due           
          to a delay in the transmission of the mail.  We do not consider             
          petitioner's interpretation of the regulation the proper                    
          interpretation.  However, even if petitioner's interpretation               
          were proper, petitioner has failed to show the cause of the                 
          delay.                                                                      
               This Court and other courts have upheld the regulations with           
          respect to when a private metered postmark will be accepted as a            
          filing date.  Lindemood v. Commissioner, 566 F.2d 646 (9th Cir.             
          1977), affg. T.C. Memo. 1975-195; Fishman v. Commissioner, 51               
          T.C. 869, 872 (1969), affd. 420 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1970).                    
               Based on the facts established by this record, the                     
          regulations with respect to mail postmarked by a private postal             
          meter, and the cases of this and other Courts upholding the                 
          regulations, we conclude that petitioner has failed to show any             
          reason why this case should not be dismissed for lack of                    
          jurisdiction, and, therefore, we shall deny petitioner's motion             
          to reconsider our order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of            
          this case entered September 7, 1995.                                        





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011