- 7 -
section 172(b)(3) were satisfied. We are not persuaded that the
postal receipt demonstrates that the so-called draft return and
the April 4, 1996 letter were mailed to, and received by,
respondent. First, the postal receipt bears a date earlier than
the date of the April 4, 1996 letter. Second, the postal receipt
indicates postage paid of 32 cents. The postal rate in effect
for 1996 was 32 cents for the first ounce and 23 cents for each
additional ounce. Thus, the postal receipt does not reflect the
proper amount of postage necessary to mail the 10-page so-called
draft return and the April 4, 1996 letter. Third, petitioner
admitted that such letter may have been mailed to respondent with
the so-called draft return, with the 1995 extension application,
or independently of either document. Finally, respondent did not
receive either the so-called draft return or the April 4, 1996
letter. Therefore, we cannot accept petitioners’ claim that the
postal receipt demonstrates that the so-called draft return and
the April 4, 1996 letter were ever mailed to, or received by,
respondent.5
On March 27, 1997, petitioners filed the 1995 return.
However, petitioners did not attach any statement to the 1995
5 We note that the postal receipt does support the fact
that petitioners mailed to respondent their 1995 extension
application on Apr. 3, 1996. Even if we were to assume arguendo
that the letter was attached to the extension application, this
would still be insufficient to satisfy the statutory and
regulatory requirements under sec. 172(b)(3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011