- 7 -
has not shown, that there was a delay in the transmission of the
mail, nor has he shown any reason for the delay in the
transmission of the mail, if there was such a delay. Beacham v.
Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner argues that because the regulations cannot be
satisfied, they are invalid. We reject this assertion. “This
Court and other courts have upheld the regulations with respect
to when a private metered postmark will be accepted as a filing
date." Beacham v. Commissioner, supra. Mr. Hughes could have
used other alternatives to mail the petition, such as certified
mail, which would have provided prima facie evidence that the
petition was timely mailed. Sec. 7502(c).
Petitioner has failed to provide evidence that establishes
that the late delivery of the petition was due to a delay in the
transmission of the mail and the cause of any such delay. Thus,
we hold that he did not file his petition with this Court within
the time prescribed by sections 6213(a) and 7502, and
respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction should be
granted.
Although petitioner cannot pursue his case in this Court, he
is not without a judicial remedy. Specifically, he may pay the
tax, file a claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service,
and, if his claim is denied, sue for a refund in the appropriate
Federal District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011