7
the cause of such delays. Lindemood v. Commissioner, 566 F.2d
646 (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); sec. 301.7502-(c)(1)(iii)(b),
Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof. Even if
we concluded that the petition and the amended petition were
timely deposited in the mails, petitioner has not established
that the delays in delivery were due to delays in the
transmission of the mail or the cause of such delays. Sec.
301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs. The alleged
closing of the Government did not affect the transmission of the
mail. Moreover, even if November 21, 1995, were a holiday in
Washington, D.C., it would not extend the 90-day period for the
1993 year beyond November 22, 1995. Thus, petitioner has not
established that the petition and the amended petition were
timely mailed under sections 6213(a) and 7502. See also Rule
41(a). Accordingly, this case must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
Petitioner may still be able to obtain a judicial hearing on
the merits of respondent's determinations in Federal District
Court or the United States Court of Federal Claims by following
the refund procedures.
In view of the circumstances involved in this case, we
decline to award petitioner any requested costs or to sanction
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011