-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 overPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011