- 5 -
actually deposited in the mail within the prescribed period for
filing, (ii) that the delay in receipt was due to a delay in the
transmission of the mail, and (iii) the cause of such delay.
In the instant case, the petition was received by the Court
13 days after the last date prescribed for filing. Since the
privately metered postmark on the envelope is November 5, 1996,
the last date prescribed for filing, the petition will be deemed
timely under the regulations if it was received within the time
that mail of the same class would ordinarily be received if
mailed on that date from the same point of origin. The parties
agree that the point of origin for these purposes is San Jose,
California. Whether a petition has been received within the
normal mailing period is a factual question, and petitioners have
the burden of proving that the 13-day delivery is within the
normal mailing period for mail sent from San Jose, California, to
Washington, D.C. Castro v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-530. A
U.S. Postal Service statistical programs coordinator in the San
Jose office, called by respondent, testified that the normal
delivery time from San Jose to Washington, D.C., in November 1996
was 3 days for first class mail and 5 to 7 days for third class
mail. The envelope contains no markings indicating its postage
class, and petitioners have offered no other evidence on this
point. On this record, we find that petitioners have failed to
show that the petition was received within the time that mail
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011