- 10 -
transmission of the mail or the cause of such delay.3 Under the
circumstances, we hold that the petition was not timely filed.
As a final matter, petitioners erroneously contend that the
petition should be deemed to have been timely filed pursuant to the
common-law "mailbox rule". The common-law mailbox rule provides
that proof of a properly mailed document creates a presumption that
the document was delivered and actually received by the addressee.
See Estate of Wood v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 793, 798-799 (1989),
affd. 909 F.2d 1156 (8th Cir. 1990), and cases cited therein. There
is no question in this case that the petition was delivered to the
Court on March 8, 2000. However, petitioners must establish that
the petition was timely mailed to the Court. Given the lack of
satisfactory proof that the petition was placed in the mail within
the 90-day filing period prescribed in section 6213(a), petitioners'
reliance on the common-law mailbox rule is misplaced.
3 We agree with respondent that the New York Times article
that petitioners offered into evidence in this case contains
hearsay; nevertheless, we admit the article into evidence.
Although the article indicates that the U.S. Postal Service
experienced difficulties delivering certified mail in various
jurisdictions during the period April through July 2000, the
article does not mention Washington, D.C., as a trouble spot, and
we do not consider the article to be persuasive evidence that the
delay in the delivery of the petition in this case was due to a
delay in the transmission of the mail, or the cause of such
delay.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011