- 7 -
to some incongruities. Nonetheless, we find that the record in
this case shows that section 7502 is inapplicable and that
petitioner’s return was not timely filed.
The first requirement for the applicability of section 7502
is that the postmark on the envelope bear a date on or before the
due date of the return. Id. This requirement is met because the
return bears the date of October 15, 1996, its due date. The
second requirement is that the return be received in the ordinary
amount of time for a document bearing that postmark date. Id.
This requirement has not been met. Petitioner mailed her return
on October 15, 1996, and the IRS did not receive the return until
6 days later, on October 21, 1996. We take judicial notice of
the U.S. Postal Service’s Publication 201, Consumer’s Guide to
Postal Services & Products, a portion of which petitioner
attached to her trial memorandum. This publication states that 3
days is the normal delivery time for nonlocal first class mail.
See also Kirschenbaum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-102;
Robinson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-146; Fujioka v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-316; Chang v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1998-298. The delivery time of 6 days in this case falls
outside this timeframe.
A return that is not received in the ordinary amount of time
will nevertheless be considered as having been so received if
certain requirements are met. These requirements have not been
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011