David J. and Patricia A. Fogderud - Page 4




                                          4                                            
          must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  Monge v.                        
          Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989).                                         
               If a petition is received after the 90-day period, the                  
          petition is deemed filed when mailed if the requirements of                  
          section 7502 are satisfied.  Stotter v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 896            
          (1978).  Under section 7502(a), if the envelope containing the               
          petition bears a postmark made by the U.S. Postal Service, if the            
          date of such postmark falls within the 90-day period, and if the             
          other requirements of section 7502 are satisfied, then                       
          notwithstanding the untimely receipt, the petition will be deemed            
          timely filed.  Stotter v. Commissioner, supra.                               
               Here, it is clear that the postmark on the envelope                     
          containing the petition was made 102 days after the mailing of               
          the notices of deficiency and that the petition was filed 105                
          days after the mailing of the notices of deficiency.  Thus,                  
          unless petitioners are entitled to the 150-day period under                  
          section 6213(a), this case must be dismissed for lack of                     
          jurisdiction.                                                                
               In their Objection to the motion, petitioners admit that the            
          "90-day period for timely filing was not met."  Petitioners                  
          assert they were in Mexico when the filing of the petition was               
          apparently due.  This assertion is not supported by any of their             
          exhibits and is contrary to the stipulated facts.  In their                  
          Supplemental Objection, petitioners allege that "More documents              
          can be provided if necessary to prove that Petitioners were truly            
          out of the United States during the period commencing December               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011