- 7 -
delay in the transmission of the mail, and the cause of the
delay. See Selter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-316.
Petitioners have provided no evidence demonstrating that the
delay in the delivery of the petition to the Court was due to a
delay in the transmission of the mail or the cause of such a
delay. To the contrary, petitioners admit in their objection to
respondent's motion that they have not established either of
these requirements: "Petitioner [sic] and their attorney do not
understand why the mail was not received by the Tax Court within
three days. It appears the weather should not have complicated
the mailing process, however this factor has not been thoroughly
explored."
The petition was received by the Court after expiration of
the statutory filing period, and petitioners have failed to prove
the facts necessary under the regulations to establish timely
filing by mail. Therefore this case must be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction.3 This result could easily have been avoided if
3We note, finally, that petitioners need not be denied their
day in court as they may pay the deficiency, file a claim for
refund, and, if the claim is denied, commence an action in U.S.
District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to recover the
tax paid. See Drake v. Commissioner, 554 F.2d 736, 739 (5th Cir.
1977).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011