- 4 -
jurisdictional and cannot be extended. Failure to file within
the prescribed period requires that the case be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction. See Estate of Cerrito v. Commissioner, 73
T.C. 896, 898 (1980); Stone v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 617, 618
(1980).
In this case, the 90-day period for filing a timely petition
with this Court pursuant to section 6213(a) expired on Monday,
January 24, 2000.2 The petition was not filed until Tuesday,
February 8, 2000, which was 105 days after the mailing of the
notice of deficiency.
Although the petition was not timely filed, petitioners
maintain that the petition was timely mailed to the Court on
January 24, 2000, the last day of the 90-day period, and 15 days
before the petition was delivered to the Court. Section 7502 and
the regulations thereunder provide that, in certain
circumstances, a timely mailed petition will be treated as though
it were timely filed.
Section 301.7502-1(c)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs., provides:
If the document is sent by United States certified mail
and the sender's receipt is postmarked by the postal
employee to whom such document is presented, the date
of the United States postmark on such receipt shall be
treated as the postmark date of the document.
Accordingly, the risk that the document will not be
postmarked on the day that it is deposited in the mail
may be overcome by the use of * * * certified mail.
2Jan. 24, 2000, was not a legal holiday in the District of
Columbia.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011