- 9 -
may offer extrinsic evidence to rebut the date of a postmark
affixed to an envelope bearing a petition filed with the Court.
Indeed, in the course of its analysis, the Court of Appeals in
Anderson v. Commissioner, supra, acknowledged its earlier holding
in Shipley v. Commissioner, supra, that, in the absence of a
receipt for certified mail, the taxpayer was precluded under
section 7502 from introducing extrinsic evidence to prove that
the postmark date affixed to the envelope bearing a petition
filed with the Court was incorrect.
Although the circumstances leading to the late filed
petition in this case are unfortunate, we note that the mailing
of the petition on the 90th day raised “the spectre of possible
timeliness problems” requiring a heightened degree of care in the
mailing process. See Drake v. Commissioner, supra at 739.
Moreover, although we lack jurisdiction in this case, petitioner
is not without a remedy. In short, petitioner may pay the tax,
file a claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service, and if
the claim is denied, sue for a refund in the Federal District
Court or the Court of Federal Claims. See id. at 739; McCormick
v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 (1970). Consistent with the
preceding discussion, we shall grant respondent's Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011