Donna J. Hendley - Page 7




                                        - 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