- 5 -
she received from respondent the notice of deficiency. Cf.
Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158
(1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947). In the absence of
contrary evidence, we conclude and hold that respondent has
proved that the notice of deficiency was mailed on December 29,
1998. Cf. United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir.
1984); United States v. Ahrens, 530 F.2d 781, 784 (8th Cir.
1976); Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82, 90-91 (1990).
Relying on section 7502(a), petitioner argues that even if
the notice of deficiency was mailed on December 29, 1998, the
petition was timely filed on March 29, 1999.
Under section 7502(a)(1), if a petition is delivered to the
Court by U.S. mail after the expiration of the 90-day deadline,
the date of the “United States postmark stamped on the cover” in
which the petition was mailed is deemed to be the date of
delivery.4 For this purpose, any private postage meter mark is
disregarded. See Malekzad v. Commissioner 76 T.C. 963, 967
(1981). If the U.S. postmark is illegible or has been
4 Sec. 7502(c)(2) authorizes the Secretary to promulgate by
regulation the extent to which the use of certified mail shall
constitute prima facie evidence of delivery and the manner in
which the postmark date will be determined. The applicable
regulations provide in relevant part:
If the document is sent by United States certified mail and
the sender’s receipt is postmarked by the postal employee to
whom such document is presented, the date of the United
States postmark on such receipt shall be treated as the
postmark date of the document. [Sec. 301.7502-1(c)(2),
Proced. & Admin. Regs.]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011