- 6 -
On the record before us, we find that petitioner has shown
that the envelope containing the petition in this case that the
Court received was timely mailed on January 16, 2007. We hold
that under the timely-mailing/timely-filing rule the petition in
this case is considered to have been timely filed on January 16,
2007.
To reflect the foregoing,
An order denying respondent’s
motion will be issued.
5(...continued)
The United States Postal Service has advised respondent
that an envelope which was properly addressed to the
Tax Court and mailed from the Owings Mills, Maryland
area, and bearing a United States postmark with the
date of January 16, 2007, would have ordinarily been
received on or about January 19, 2007, at the Tax
Court.
Respondent declined to call any witnesses, such as a U.S.
Postal Service employee, at the evidentiary hearing that the
Court held on respondent’s motion. Assuming arguendo that the
above-quoted allegation in respondent’s motion were established
by the record in this case, that allegation does not appear to
take account of the delay caused by the irradiation treatment to
which regular U.S. Postal Service mail sent to and received by
the Court is subject. Assuming arguendo that an envelope mailed
from the Owings Mills Post Office would ordinarily have been
received by the Court on or about Jan. 19, 2007, which was a
Friday, the envelope containing the petition would not have been
received by the Court after the irradiation treatment until at
the earliest Monday, Jan. 22, 2007, the date on which it was
actually received by the Court around 10:55 a.m.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: November 10, 2007