- 8 -
bearing a petition was treated as a nullity where the petition
was delivered to the Court more than a week before the date of
the postmark).
Petitioner cites Anderson v. Commissioner, 966 F.2d 487 (9th
Cir. 1992), for the proposition that she has offered sufficient
evidence to invoke the common-law “mailbox” rule. Petitioner’s
reliance on Anderson v. Commissioner, supra, and the mailbox rule
is misplaced.
The question presented in Anderson v. Commissioner, supra,
was whether the taxpayer would be permitted to present extrinsic
evidence of the date of mailing of a tax return where the
Commissioner had no record of having received the return. Under
the facts presented in that case, the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (1) rejected the Commissioner’s argument that
section 7502 presented the sole means for the taxpayer to prove
the date of mailing of the missing tax return, and (2) allowed
the taxpayer’s extrinsic evidence. After sustaining the district
court’s holding that the taxpayer had established the date of
mailing, the Court of Appeals went on to sustain the District
Court’s holding that the taxpayer could rely on the rebuttable
presumption under the common law mailbox rule that a document
properly and timely mailed is received by the addressee.
Contrary to petitioner’s position, Anderson v. Commissioner,
supra, does not stand for the broader proposition that a taxpayer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011