Mark Ernest and Esther Rubke - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
          timely filed petition.  Rule 13(a); Monge v. Commissioner, 93               
          T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1025              
          (1988); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988).              
          Ordinarily, a petition for redetermination of a deficiency must             
          be filed with this Court within 90 days from the mailing of the             
          notice of deficiency.  Sec. 6213(a).  The failure to file within            
          the prescribed period requires that the petition be dismissed for           
          lack of jurisdiction.  Estate of Rosenberg v. Commissioner, 73              
          T.C. 1014, 1016-1017 (1980).                                                
               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 U.S. certified mail                   
               and the sender’s receipt is postmarked by the postal                   
               employee to whom the document * * * is presented, the                  
               date of the U.S. postmark on the receipt is 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 eliminated                 
               by the use of * * * certified mail.                                    
          In the instant case, petitioners sent their petition by certified           
          mail.  However, the regulation does not apply because the                   
          sender’s receipt4 was never presented to any postal employee and            

               4A sender’s receipt to which sec. 301.7502-1(c)(2), Proced.            
          & Admin. Regs., refers is part of a certified mail form.  Denman            
          v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 1140, 1142 (1961); Brown v.                        
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-165.  The receipt is filled in by             
          the sender, and, upon request, it will be postmarked by the                 
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011