- 52 -
date postmarked on the envelope in which petitioner's 1994 tax
return was delivered to the Service is October 17, 1995, and that
date is after the date on which that return was required to be
filed.
On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed
to establish that he timely filed his 1994 tax return. On that
record, we further find that petitioner is liable for 1994 for
the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).5
Accuracy-Related Penalty Under Section 6662(a)--1994
Section 6662(a) imposes an accuracy-related penalty equal to
20 percent of the underpayment of tax resulting from a sub-
stantial understatement of income tax. An understatement is
equal to the excess of the amount of tax required to be shown in
5We note that Mr. Henry had it within his power to avoid the
problem presented in this case. He testified that he mailed his
1994 tax return certified mail because his accountant "always
wants it done certified mail." Indeed, the copy of his 1994 tax
return that is in the record has typewritten at the top of it:
"CERTIFIED MAIL NO. Z 721 020 113". If Mr. Henry had obtained
and introduced into evidence a receipt for the certified mailing
of his 1994 tax return which bore the actual date of the mailing
of that tax return, the date marked on any such receipt would
have been treated as the date of the U.S. postmark for purposes
of sec. 7502(a). See sec. 7502(c)(2); sec. 301.7502-1(c)(2),
Proced. & Admin. Regs. If that date were Oct. 16, 1995 (or an
earlier date), petitioner would have satisfied the requirement of
sec. 7502(a)(2)(A) that the U.S. postmark fall on or before the
date (as extended) on which his tax return was due. Mr. Henry
either chose not to obtain a receipt for the certified mailing of
his 1994 tax return or he chose not to present at trial the
receipt that he did obtain. In either event, he appropriately
bears the risk that such inaction entails.
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011