- 6 -
inadvertently omitted, the taxpayer may offer extrinsic evidence
to establish what was or should have been the actual date of the
U.S. postmark. See Sylvan v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 548 (1975)
(omitted postmark); Molosh v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 320 (1965)
(illegible postmark). The same evidence is relevant in either
case. See Sylvan v. Commissioner, supra at 554. In either case,
to obtain the benefits of section 7502, the taxpayer bears the
burden of proving timely mailing. See Langston v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1997-303; see also sec. 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(a),
Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Relying on provisions of the U.S. Postal Service Postal
Operations Manual and citing Traxler v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 97
(1973), modified 63 T.C. 534 (1975), petitioner argues that the
markings in question do not constitute a U.S. postmark but that
in any event, the date is illegible.
On the basis of the evidence in the record, we believe that
the markings in question do constitute a U.S. postmark and that
the date appearing therein is March 30, 1999. The manager of
distribution operations at a U.S. Postal Service mail processing
facility in Houston, Texas, testified that the envelope in which
the petition was mailed did bear a U.S. postmark and that,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011