-5-
A second mailing of the petition bears a private postmeter date of
April 21, 1995.
In Wiese v Commissioner, 70 T.C. 712 (1978), the taxpayer
claimed that the date on a private postage meter was set
incorrectly, resulting in an untimely postmark that was 1 day later
than the actual date that the petition was mailed. The taxpayer
therein attempted to introduce extrinsic evidence to support his
claim. In declining to receive the taxpayer's proffer of extrinsic
evidence, we stated:
The general scheme of section 7502 and implementing
regulations is designed to avoid testimony as to date of
mailing in favor of tangible evidence in the form of an
official Government notation. As such, when a legible
Postal Service postmark appears on an envelope, no
evidence that the petition was mailed on some other day
will be allowed. Shipley v. Commissioner, 572 F.2d 212,
214 (9th Cir. 1977), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this
Court; Sylvan v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 548, 552 (1975);
sec. 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Where non-Postal Service postmarks are used, the
statute does permit extrinsic evidence other than the
tangible evidence of the postmark. In such cases, the
regulations require the timely private postage meter
postmark date to be independently corroborated by facts
beyond the taxpayer's control. * * * But the statute and
regulations clearly contemplate presentation of such
extrinsic evidence only when the private postage meter
postmark reflects a date on or before the 90th day after
mailing the notice of deficiency.
* * * * * * *
we believe our position maintains the obvious parity
sought by Congress between private postage meter and
Postal Service postmarks--that both be made on or before
the 90th day. We noted that where a legible Postal
Service postmark reflected a date after the 90th day, no
evidence could be presented to contradict it. We see no
reason why a taxpayer who has independent control over
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011