- 5 -
later than the time ordinarily required for the delivery of a
document postmarked at the same point of origin by the U.S. Post
Office on the last day for its filing. If such document is not
delivered within such time, a taxpayer seeking to rely on the
timely mailing/timely filing rule must establish that the
document was actually deposited in the mail on or before the last
date prescribed for filing, that the delay in delivery was
attributable to delay in the transmission of the mail, and the
cause of the delay. Lindemood v. Commissioner, 566 F.2d 646,
648-649 (9th Cir. 1977), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1975-195;
Fishman v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. 869, 872-873 (1969), affd. per
curiam 420 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1970); sec. 301.7502-(c)(1)(iii)(B),
Proced. & Admin. Regs.
In the instant case, the petition was received by the Court
9 days after the last date prescribed for filing. Since the
privately metered postmark on the envelope is August 1, 2001, the
last date prescribed for filing, the petition will be deemed
timely under the regulations if it was received within the time
that mail of the same class would ordinarily be received if
mailed on that date from the same point of origin. The point of
origin for these purposes is Oakland, California. Whether a
petition has been received within the normal mailing period is a
factual question, and petitioners bear the burden of proving that
the 9-day delivery time is within the normal mailing period for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011