-6-
61 T.C. 97, 99 (1973), modified 63 T.C. 534 (1975); Southern
California Loan Association v. Commissioner, 4 B.T.A. 223, 226
(1926); Hurst, Anthony & Watkins v. Commissioner, 1 B.T.A. 26, 27
(1924). Under normal circumstances, the Commissioner can
establish the date that a notice of deficiency is mailed by
relying on the postmark on U.S. Postal Service Form 3877. See
Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82, 90-91 (1990); Magazine v.
Commissioner, 89 T.C. 321, 324 (1987); Meader v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1982-288.
In extraordinary circumstances, we have recognized
exceptions to the general rule that the date of mailing is the
date that the Commissioner actually places the notice of
deficiency in the mail. One of the more comprehensive
discussions of the subject is set forth in our original opinion
in Traxler v. Commissioner, supra.
In Traxler, the taxpayers received a notice of deficiency
dated March 29, 1973, in an envelope that was date stamped March
31, 1973. The taxpayers mailed their petition to the Court 91
days after the date appearing on the notice of deficiency but 89
days after the date stamp appearing on the envelope bearing the
notice of deficiency. The Commissioner moved to dismiss the
petition for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that it was not
timely filed. The taxpayers objected to the Commissioner's
motion asserting that the date of mailing for purposes of section
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011