- 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