Benjamin V. Gomez - Page 6

               Section 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs.,3             
          provides that privately metered mail qualifies for the timely               
          mailing rule of section 7502 if the postmark bears a timely date            
          and the document is received no later than the time ordinarily              
          required for the delivery of a document postmarked at the same              
          point of origin by the Postal Service on the last day for its               
          filing.  If the document is not delivered within such time, the             
          taxpayer must establish, among other things, that the delay in              
          the delivery was due to delay in the transmission of mail and the           
          cause of the delay.                                                         
               For 1992, the petition was received on November 13, 1995, 14           
          days after the alleged mailing on October 30, 1995.  For 1993,              
          the amended petition was received on December 7, 1995, 16 days              
          after the alleged mailing on November 21, 1995.  Inasmuch as                
          normal delivery time between Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. is            
          3 days, neither the petition nor the amended petition was                   
          received within the ordinary time for delivery.  Therefore, the             
          regulations require petitioner to establish:  (1) The documents             
          were actually deposited in the mail on or before the last dates             
          prescribed for filing; (2) the delays in delivery were                      
          attributable to delays in the transmission of the mail; and (3)             

          3         The regulations under section 7502(b) have been held to           
          be valid.  Lindemood v. Commissioner, 566 F.2d 646, 648-649 (9th            
          Cir. 1977), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1975-195; Fishman v.                
          Commissioner, 51 T.C. 869, 872-873 (1969), affd. per curiam 420             
          F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1970).                                                    

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011