- 10 -
matter was Mr. Huff’s testimony, which we do not find to be
credible.6 We hold for respondent.
We have considered all arguments made by the parties and, to
the extent not discussed herein, have rejected those arguments as
meritless.
Decision will be
entered for respondent.
6 Mr. Huff testified that he used his private postage meter
machine to stamp the date on the envelope used to mail
petitioners’ 1997 return to respondent. In certain cases,
privately metered mail received after a due date may be
considered timely even if the mail actually was received beyond
the normal delivery period. Sec. 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(B)(1),
Proced. & Admin. Regs. In those cases, the taxpayer must
establish that: (1) The mail was deposited in the U.S. mail on
or before the due date before the last collection of mail from
that place of deposit, (2) the delay was attributable to delay in
the transmission of the U.S. mail, and (3) the cause for such
delay. Sec. 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(B)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Petitioners have not established timely deposit, and they have
offered no persuasive reason as to why their return was received
by respondent more than 1 year after it was allegedly mailed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: May 25, 2011