- 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