- 8 -
(1) the dramatic increase in the volume of holiday
mail; (2) the mailing by the IRS of 87 million tax
return forms on December 27, 1985; (3) the recognized
proclivity of some post office employees to take time
off, leave early, and work less diligently during the
holidays; (4) the addition of temporary postal
employees during the holiday rush with their known
deficiencies in accuracy and efficiency; (5) the heavy
airline passenger traffic during the holidays,
requiring that mail be pulled off flights and held for
later flights, causing mail handling delays at Houston
Intercontinental Airport of up to 48 hours; (6) the
inclement weather during the critical period and the
adverse effect it had on travel in the District of
Columbia; and (7) the mail routine which calls for
delivery of mail to the Tax Court only once a day, in
the early morning, so that any item received at its
immediate post office during the day is not delivered
until the next. * * * [Id. at 232-233; fn. ref.
omitted.]
On the basis of this evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded
that the taxpayers had met the requirements of section 301.7502-
1(c)(1)(iii)(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs.2
On brief, petitioners attempt to bring themselves within a
Rotenberry scenario by repeated speculations about the impact of
"holiday" conditions on mail service. The mailing period at
issue in this case is November 5, 1996 (the date on which
petitioners allege the petition was mailed), through November 18,
1996 (the date on which the petition was received). In 1996,
Thanksgiving Day fell on November 28. We do not believe that
petitioners have shown that "holiday" conditions existed that
2 The Commissioner had conceded that the delay in receipt
was occasioned by a delay in the transmission of the mail; the
dispute was over the adequacy of the taxpayer's proof of the
cause therefor.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011