Debra J. Hord - Page 6




                                        - 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