7
reference to the envelope containing the petitions, Mr. Warren
writes:
Since the correct address was used, it is impossible to
explain why your envelope was stamped "return to sender".
However, because the envelope was stamped "return to sender
undeliverable as addressed", this may have been the main
cause for delay.
Mr. Green, it is difficult to say where or who may have
crossed out the "return to sender" stamp on the front of the
envelope since you have stated it was never returned to you.
It is quite possible someone in the Washington Post Office
discovered the error and crossed out the stamp rerouting the
envelope as a good address.
Based on the appearance of the envelope and Mr. Warren's letter,
we conclude that the delay in delivery of the petitions to this
Court was due to a delay in the transmission of the mail, and
that the delay was caused by the Postal Service. See, e.g.,
Langston v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-303.
Petitioners have satisfied the three elements of section
301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs., and the
petitions are deemed to have been filed timely. Therefore,
respondent's motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction will be
denied.
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order
will be issued.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011