- 7 -
Respondent’s “Certificate of Official Record” indicates,
inter alia, that petitioner filed his 1991 return on January 6,
1999. While petitioner provided a copy of his 1991 return
containing a date stamp of February 10, 1993, next to the
signature line, he failed to provide any evidence of mailing or
delivery.8 A date stamp on a return, without any evidence of
mailing or other delivery, does not satisfy petitioner’s burden.
As to the 1992 return, which is not part of the record,
respondent’s “Certificate of Official Record” indicates, inter
alia, that petitioner filed his 1992 return on September 28,
1998. Petitioner testified that he delivered his 1992 and 1993
returns to respondent’s Maitland, Florida, Service Center on
November 9, 1995. Petitioner’s testimony, without credible
supporting documentary evidence, is not enough to satisfy his
burden of proof.9 See Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 89-
90 (1976), affd. 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976). Accordingly, we
find that the period of limitations does not bar collection of
petitioner’s 1991 and 1992 tax liabilities.
8 If a taxpayer sends a return “by registered mail or
certified mail, proof that the * * * [return] was properly
registered or that a postmark certified mail sender’s receipt was
properly issued * * * shall constitute prima facie evidence that
the * * * [return] was delivered”. Sec. 301.7502-1(d), Proced. &
Admin. Regs.
9 According to respondent’s “Certificate of Official
Record”, petitioner’s 1993 return was filed on Nov. 16, 1995.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011