- 7 -
document will be considered not to be filed timely, regardless of
when the document is deposited in the mail.” (Emphasis added.)
Based upon the record presented, we conclude that the
petition was not timely filed pursuant to section 7502(a).
Simply put, the U.S. Postal Service postmark date of April 6,
2000, affixed to the envelope bearing the petition, is conclusive
proof that the petition was not timely filed under section
7502(a).
Petitioner offers extrinsic evidence that the petition was
timely mailed on April 5, 2000. Although we allow extrinsic
evidence to prove the date of mailing where an envelope lacks a
postmark or the postmark is illegible, see Sylvan v.
Commissioner, 65 T.C. 548, 553-555 (1975), such evidence is
irrelevant in this case inasmuch as the envelope bears legible
U.S. Postal Service postmarks dated after the 90th day prescribed
for filing a timely petition. See Shipley v. Commissioner, 572
F.2d 212 (9th Cir. 1977); Drake v. Commissioner, 554 F.2d 736
(5th Cir. 1977); Kahle v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1063 (1987);
Wiese v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 712 (1978); Hamilton v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-201. In conjunction with the
foregoing, we note that the April 6, 2000 postmark date, a date 1
day before the petition was delivered to the Court, is not
overtly erroneous on its face. See Harrison v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1990-458 (private postage meter postmark on envelope
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011