- 8 - met in this case. First, it must have been deposited in the mail before the last collection of mail on the return’s due date. Sec. 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs. There is no evidence of when the last collection was made in this case, or what time of day petitioner deposited the return. Second, the delay in receiving the return must be shown to have been due to a delay in the transmission of the mail. Id. There is no evidence showing such a delay in this case. Because section 7502 is not applicable, petitioner’s return was untimely filed when the IRS received it on October 21, 1996. Thus, her election out of the installment method was not a valid election under section 453(d), contrary to respondent’s determination. See Bolton v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 303 (1989). Finally, petitioner included in gross income a capital gain of $20,738 from the sale of the residence (the portion of the gain which exceeded the claimed exclusion). Because petitioner did not make a valid election under section 453(d), she is required under section 453(a) to report the gain on the sale of the residence using the installment method. Thus, the inclusion of any portion of the gain from the sale in taxable year 1995 is in error. See sec. 453(c). Respondent has conceded that “If petitioner had not included the gain from the sale of her residence on the return, she would have had no tax liability for 1995.” The record supports this concession. We accordingly findPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011