- 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