- 5 -
Petitioner, who at that time resided in McAllen, Texas,
filed timely a petition with this Court postmarked January 2,
2003.2 On February 20, 2003, respondent filed a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. In response, the Court issued an order instructing
petitioner to file an amended petition, and informing both
parties that a hearing would be held on respondent’s motion.
Petitioner filed a motion for extension of the time to file
his amended petition, which the Court granted. Petitioner filed
an amended petition on March 13, 2003, and filed a second amended
petition on March 24, 2003. All three of petitioner’s petitions
were devoid of any arguments regarding the dollar amount of the
deficiency.3 They focused solely on petitioner’s contentions
2Respondent mailed the notice of deficiency to petitioner on
Oct. 3, 2002. The 90th day thereafter was Wednesday, Jan. 1,
2003, which was a legal holiday in the District of Columbia. See
sec. 6213(a); Rule 25(b). “When the last day prescribed under
authority of the internal revenue laws for performing any act
falls on * * * a legal holiday, the performance of such act shall
be considered timely if it is performed on the next succeeding
day which is not a * * * legal holiday.” Sec. 7503.
If a postage prepaid properly addressed petition is received
by the Court after the expiration of the 90-day period, it is
nevertheless deemed to be timely if the date of the U.S. Postal
Service postmark stamped on the envelope in which the petition
was mailed is within the time prescribed for filing.
Sec. 7502(a); sec. 301.7502-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Petitioner
mailed his petition via the U.S. Postal Service, and it bears a
postmark of Jan. 2, 2003. Accordingly, the petition is deemed
timely filed. See sec. 7502(a).
3Petitioner did not assign error to respondent’s deficiency
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008