- 6 -
timely filed.5 See Casqueira v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-
428; Hurst, Anthony & Watkins v. Commissioner, 1 B.T.A. 26
(1924).
The 90-day period for filing a timely petition with the
Court expired on Thursday, October 24, 1996. As previously
noted, the private postage meter postmark date on the envelope
containing the petition is October 25, 1996. Because the
petition was neither mailed nor filed with this Court within the
90-day period prescribed in section 6213(a) and section 7502, it
therefore follows that this case must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
Although petitioner does not dispute that the notice of
deficiency was mailed to him at his last known address,
petitioner makes vague and wholly unsubstantiated claims that his
failure to file a timely petition is attributable to delays in
the mail system of the Lewisburg prison camp. Given petitioner's
statement that he received the notice of deficiency in August
1996, petitioner had, at a minimum, nearly 2 months to file a
timely petition with the Court. He has not established the date
on which he deposited his petition in the prison mail system.
Nor has he shown that delays in the prison mail system caused him
to file an untimely petition. See, e.g., Curry v. Commissioner,
5 It should be recalled that the record does not reveal
whether the notice of deficiency that was mailed to the Lewisburg
address was also undated; however, the copy of such notice that
was retained by respondent in her administrative file is dated.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011