- 6 -
mail sent from Oakland, California, to Washington, D.C. See
Stotter v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 896, 898 (1978); Fishman v.
Commissioner, supra at 873 (1969); Chang v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1998-298; Castro v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-530.5
Petitioners claim that they relied on statements in the
notice of deficiency that a petition will be considered timely
filed if the postmark date on the envelope containing the
petition falls within the prescribed 90-day period. Petitioners
contend that they mailed their petition on August 1, 2001, and
that certified mail takes longer to deliver than regular mail.
Petitioners introduced no evidence to establish the normal
delivery time for mail sent from Oakland, California, to
Washington, D.C. They have not produced evidence in support of
their contention that certified mail takes longer to deliver than
noncertified mail or otherwise demonstrated that a 9-day delivery
time is within the normal mailing period.6 Thus, petitioners
5In certain circumstances, if the taxpayer introduces
credible evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to
ascertaining the proper tax liability, sec. 7491 places the
burden of proof on respondent. Sec. 7491(a); Rule 142(a)(2).
Sec. 7491 is effective with respect to court proceedings arising
in connection with examinations commencing after July 22, 1998.
Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998,
Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3001(c)(2), 112 Stat. 726. Petitioners do
not contend, nor is there evidence, that their examination
commenced after July 22, 1998, or that sec. 7491 applies in this
case.
6At the hearing, respondent attempted to introduce into
evidence a declaration from a U.S. postal employee as to the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011