- 15 -
ordinary Postal Service time for delivery of mail from Oakland,
California, to Fresno, California.
Petitioners admit they did not file their return by the
proper filing date as extended but claim they mailed their return
no later then October. Petitioners have failed to offer any
evidence to contradict respondent’s above evidence, except
unsubstantiated trial testimony.3
This Court finds petitioners’ testimony vague, unclear, and
unpersuasive. We reject petitioners’ testimony that their 1998
return was filed in October of 1999 and that the copy of the
envelope offered into evidence is not the proper envelope which
contained petitioners’ 1998 return.
Petitioners’ only dispute with the application of section
6651(a)(1) is with the date they filed their return. Petitioners
failed to file timely their Federal income tax return for 1998.
Petitioners have not argued, and there is nothing in the record
to indicate, that such failure was due to reasonable cause and
not to willful neglect. Respondent’s determination that
petitioners filed their return in April of 2000, and therefore
3Sec. 7502 describes two examples of evidence that could
have been used by petitioners. First, if any return is required
to be filed by a certain date, and is received after that date,
the date of the U.S. postmark shall be deemed the date of
delivery. Second, if a document is sent by registered or
certified mail, such registration or certification shall be prima
facie evidence that the document was delivered on the date of the
postmark. See sec. 7502.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011