-8-
Turning our attention to the two remaining possibilities,
the date of actual mailing and the date stamped on the envelope
bearing the notice of deficiency, we observed:
Certainly in everyday parlance a postmark date is
regarded as the date of mailing. Normally if one is
asked when a letter "is mailed," he will look to the
postmark. That is obviously what the petitioners did
in this case. They saw the date "Mar. 31, 1973" on the
envelope. The best evidence of the postmark date is
the postmark itself. Without it, the next best
evidence is the Commissioner's receipt for certified
mail. This will not place any additional burden on the
Internal Revenue Service. If its receipt for certified
mail shows that more than 90 days has passed, the
normal challenge to jurisdiction will be forthcoming.
Only in cases where the postmark carries a later date
can the petitioner successfully resist. In no case
will the Commissioner's certified mail procedure need
to be changed. [Id. at 100.]
Based upon the assumption that the date stamp appearing on the
envelope bearing the notice of deficiency constituted a postmark,
we concluded that the taxpayers could reasonably have relied on
that date in computing the 90-day period for filing their
petition. Because the petition was mailed within 90 days of
March 31, 1973, we denied the Commissioner's motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction.3 To the same effect, see Sandor v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-643; Bill Wright Toyota, Inc. v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-344.
3 However, in Traxler v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 534 (1975),
we modified our earlier opinion, 61 T.C. 97 (1973), and granted
the Commissioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, in
light of evidence demonstrating that the date stamp in question
was a postal administrative control marking as opposed to a
postmark. See also Page v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-180;
Toppin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1976-154.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011