- 10 -
MR. DAILY: That's correct, Your Honor. And
therefore, I would argue that that
Section does not apply to us because
of the interpretation of what
postmark of the United States Post
Office is.
Inasmuch as petitioner had no proof regarding
the second and third conditions of section 301.7502-
1(c)(iii)(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs., petitioner's attorney
argued "that the marking on our envelope should, in fact,
be considered a U.S. postmark because the U.S. Postal
Service so considers it and their operations manual and
the domestic mail manual are both consistent in that
application." We disagree. We find that the postmark on
the envelope in which the instant petition was mailed is a
postmark "not made by the United States Postal Service".
Thus, it is subject to section 7502(b) and the regulations
promulgated thereunder, quoted above. The burden placed on
taxpayers by those regulations may be a difficult one but
that, by itself, does not permit us to find that the
regulations are invalid, as suggested by petitioner. The
regulations were promulgated under the broad rule-making
authority given to the Commissioner by section 7502(b).
They have been held valid by this and other courts, and
nothing in petitioner's argument convinces us that the
regulations are unreasonable or plainly inconsistent with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011