- 18 -
June 15. Section 7502(a) provides that, in certain
circumstances, an untimely received return is deemed timely filed
on the date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark on the envelope
or the date a receipt is issued by the U.S. Postal Service for
either certified or registered mail. However, the timely
mailing-timely filing rule of section 7502(a) does not apply to
foreign postmarks. It is well established that foreign postmarks
do not effectively cause the filing date of a document to be the
postmark date. See Cespedes v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 214 (1959);
Madison v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1301 (1957); Electronic
Automation Sys., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1976-270; sec.
301.7502-1(c)(ii), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Accordingly,
petitioner's mailing of his return did not come within the
provisions of section 7502 and the filing of his return would
have been untimely, even if the return had been mailed on the due
date.
Petitioner also argued that he should not be liable for the
late-filing addition because he was advised by tax professionals
that a foreign postmark would effectively date his return as
filed. However, he presented no evidence that he received this
advice before he mailed his 1995 return. Nor did petitioner show
that the advice was provided by anyone who was competent to
render tax advice. He was unable to show that he relied upon or
that it was reasonable to rely upon that advice when he mailed
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011