- 12 -
Service but is not legible, the person who is required
to file the document or make the payment has the burden
of proving the date that the postmark was made.
[Emphasis supplied.]
As the person who is required to file a timely petition,
petitioner had the burden of proving the date on which the U.S.
Postal Service postmark was made. Petitioner failed to do so.
Petitioner simply argues that the forwarding of the Request by
respondent to the Court caused the filing to be untimely and that
his case should not be dismissed because of respondent’s failure
to act promptly.
It is unfortunate that respondent did not exercise greater
care and diligence to insure that petitioner’s Request was
delivered timely to this Court. However, it is petitioner’s
responsibility to file his petition properly; respondent has no
burden to forward a misaddressed petition to the Court. Axe v.
Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). We cannot expand our
jurisdiction beyond the 90-day prescribed period, “whatever the
equities of a particular case may be and regardless of the cause
for * * * [the petition] not being filed within the required
period.” Id.
Because petitioner has not proven the date on which the
illegible U.S. Postal Service postmark was made and because his
petition was not delivered or deemed delivered to the Court
within 90 days of the date of the notice of deficiency, we hold
that we do not have jurisdiction under sections 6213(a) and 7502.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011