- 6 -
postmarked, that date is the date that controls.” Lewis v.
United States, supra at 1223. In Lewis, the court found that “a
taxpayer with an unblemished reputation for paying taxes [who]
produces circumstantial evidence supporting his word” has
provided sufficient evidence under Anderson, even in the absence
of “the taxpayer’s sworn testimony that she had seen a postal
clerk affix the postmark on the appropriate date.” Id. at 1222-
1223.
As discussed above, we have found that petitioner mailed her
1997 return on April 15, 1998. We base this finding on the
credible testimony of petitioner and her daughter, Ms. Genous.
There are no inconsistencies in petitioner’s version of events,
and respondent did not present any evidence directly calling into
question the testimony of petitioner or Ms. Genous. On the basis
of this testimony, therefore, we conclude that the return was
mailed in a properly addressed envelope with sufficient postage,
and that the return bore a postmark of April 15, 1998. See id.
at 1223. Because we find that the return was properly and timely
mailed, a presumption arises that the return was delivered to the
IRS within a reasonable amount of time thereafter. See id.;
Anderson v. United States, supra; Estate of Wood v. Commissioner,
supra; Basham v. Commissioner, supra. Respondent did not present
sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption. The only evidence
in the record supporting respondent’s position is a “Certificate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011