- 7 -
The only remaining question is whether the petition was
filed within the 90-day period prescribed in section 6213(a).
The 90-day period for filing a timely petition with the Court
expired on Monday, May 4, 1998. Petitioner contends that the
petition was mailed to the Court on April 29, 1998. Although the
petition arrived at the Court in an envelope bearing a private
postage meter postmark date of April 29, 1998, that postmark is
not controlling for purposes of determining the date of mailing
because the envelope also bore a U.S. Postal Service postmark
date of May 8, 1998. It is well settled that a private postage
meter postmark will be disregarded when it conflicts with a
legible U.S. Postal Service postmark. Malekzad v. Commissioner,
76 T.C. 963, 966-967 (1981); Gerl v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1987-289; see sec. 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(b), Proced. & Admin.
Regs. Consistent with this rule, the date of mailing of the
petition is May 8, 1998--a date that falls beyond the 90-day
filing period prescribed in section 6213. Because the petition
was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to redetermine
petitioner's tax liability for 1993, and we shall grant
respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, as
amended.4
4 Although petitioner cannot pursue his case in this Court
for the taxable year 1993, he is not without a remedy as to that
year. In short, petitioner may pay the tax, file a claim for
refund with the Internal Revenue Service, and if the claim is
denied, sue for a refund in the Federal District Court or the
U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55
T.C. 138, 142 (1970). Further, although petitioner cannot pursue
his case in this docket (i.e., dkt. No. 8801-98) for the taxable
year 1994, he may pursue his case for that year in dkt. No.
14211-98S.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011