Melton R. Boone and Geraldine R. Boone - Page 6

                                                 -  -6                                                    
            date the return was filed if the postmark date is within the                                
            period for filing the return and the return is delivered after                              
            the date it was required to be filed.  If no evidence establishes                           
            the postmark date of a return, the date the return was delivered                            
            is the date the return was filed.  Here petitioners provided no                             
            evidence of a U.S. postmark.  Consequently, section 7502 is not                             
            applicable.                                                                                 
                  It has been held, however, that section 7502 does not                                 
            displace the common law presumption of delivery (the mailbox                                
            rule).  Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir.                              
            1992); cf. Konst v. Florida E. Coast Ry., 71 F.3d 850, 854 (11th                            
            Cir. 1996).  Under the common law mailbox rule, the proper                                  
            mailing of a return gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of                               
            delivery.  Anderson v. United States,  supra at 491.  When a                                
            taxpayer is unable to produce documentary evidence that a return                            
            was mailed, we have allowed indirect, credible evidence to prove                            
            the date of postmark.  See Estate of Wood v. Commissioner, 92                               
            T.C. 793, 798 (1989) (accepting testimony of a postmistress who                             
            affixed the postmark to the envelope containing the return),                                
            affd. 909 F.2d 1155 (8th Cir. 1990).  By contrast, petitioners in                           
            this case have not produced credible evidence that their returns                            
            were timely mailed and postmarked.  We are not persuaded by                                 
            petitioner's self-serving testimony.  We think it is significant                            
            that petitioner failed to inquire about the refunds claimed on                              
            the returns.  It seems improbable to us that if petitioners had                             




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011