- 7 -
Rule 39. In any event, we are not persuaded that petitioner's
returns were filed as she asserts.
Petitioner's testimony provided neither details nor
corroboration that she mailed her returns on the dates that she
claims to have mailed them. Her speculation as to possible
misfiling or loss by the IRS does not identify any alternative
name that she has ever used or any reason to believe that returns
for 2 consecutive years, filed 11 months apart, would have been
misplaced. Petitioner presented no reliable evidence that she
secured an extension of time to file her 1994 return or that she
had reasonable cause for belated filing of either return. Even
by petitioner's account, her returns were late.
Because petitioner's returns were not timely even if mailed
on the dates that she claims to have signed them, section
7502(a), which treats timely mailing as timely filing, has no
application to this case. See Maxon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1994-494. For purposes of the statute of limitations under
section 6501(a) or to avoid additions to tax under section
6651(a), returns are filed only when they are actually received
by the IRS. See Walden v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 947, 951-952
(1988); Boone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-102; Diego
Investors-IV v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-630; see also
Belser v. Commissioner, 174 F.2d 386, 390-391 (4th Cir. 1949),
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011