§7502 — Timely mailing treated as timely filing and paying

183, 187-188 (2002) (overruling various challenges by a taxpayer to the introduction into evidence by the Commissioner of Postal Service Form 3877) .

§ 7502(a). The amicus urges that we find Mr. Sanders’s Petition timely because he relinquished control over his Petition before the filing deadline, a position that is analogous to the timely mailing rule of section 7502. But we have previously held that the timely mailing rule does not apply to an electronically filed petition.

Under section 7502(a), a document that is mailed before it is due but received after it is due is deemed to have been received when mailed. But that rule applies only to documents that are delivered by U.S. mail or a designated delivery service. I.R.C. § 7502(a)(1), (f). Because an electronically filed petition is not delivered by U.S. mail or a designated delivery service, the exception of section 7502 does not apply.

In the absence ofan explanation for the delay, the timely mailing rule of section 7502 does not apply.

Accordingly section 7502 does not apply to the petition.

The timely mailing rule ofsection 7502 does not apply, respondent maintains, because the motion was mailed on August 7, 2017, which was three days after the deadline for filing it.

7502(b). Given this premise, we have no difficulty concluding that the motion to dis- miss for lack ofjurisdiction must be denied. Subdivision (iii)(B)(3) ofthe regula- tion, governing competing postmarks, is inapplicable here for the reasons stated by the Seventh Circuit in Tilden.

7502(f)(2). We have previously held that the "timely mailed, timely filed" rule does not apply when a taxpayer mails his peti- tion using a non-designated private delivery service.

Accordingly, petitioners' argument that respondent's motion to dismiss was filed late is inapposite.

- 7 - [*7] explicitly states that "FedEx * * * [is] not designated with respect to any type ofdelivery service not identified above." Thus, FedEx Express Saver is not a "designated private delivery service" within the meaning ofsection 7502(f). See Scaggs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-258 (holding that the "timely mailed, timely filed" rule ofsection 7502 does not apply to "Fed Ex Express Saver Third business day" service because that service is not a designated private delivery service under

Because the petition was not mailed within the.prescribed 60-day period, section 7502 is inapplicable.

§ 7502(a) (2) (A). The timely mailing rule of section 7502 does not apply in the case of foreign postmarks.

That exception does not apply here because there is no evidence showing the date of a U .S.

Manchester Group, we held that the period within which a party may file a motion for leave is not a "prescribed period" and that "because section 7502 applies only to those documents required to be filed in the Tax Court within a prescribed period - 11 - or on or before a prescribed date, section 7502 does not apply to motions for leave ." Id .

Although section 7502(a) provides that, in - 7 - certain circumstances, a timely mailed petition will be treated as though it were timely filed, section 7502(b) provides that the rule “shall apply in the case of postmarks not made by the United States Postal Service only if and to the extent provided by regulations prescribed by the Secretary.” It is well settled that the timely mailing/timely filing rule of section 7502(a) does not apply to foreign postmarks.

Nonetheless, we find that the record in this case shows that section 7502 is inapplicable and that petitioner’s return was not timely filed.

Section 7502(a) provides that, in certain circumstances, an untimely received return is deemed timely filed on the date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark on the envelope or the date a receipt is issued by the U.S. Postal Service for either certified or registered mail. However, the timely mailing-timely filing rule of section 7502(a) does not apply to foreign postmarks.

We are not convinced by these unsworn, uncorroborated statements.

We hold that the 90-day deadline for filing a petition for redetermination of employment status is subject to equitable tolling but that the circumstances of this case do not warrant equitable tolling.

We hold that the 90-day deadline for filing a petition for redetermination of employment status is not jurisdictional.

Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) to dismiss this case for lack ofjurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section SERVED Jun 05 2019 - 2 - [*2] 6213(a).¹ Petitioner contends that the petition was timely mailed and so should be deemed timely filed pursuant to section 7502.

To recapitulate, we hold that the Court lacksjurisdiction insofar as the petition seeks to challenge the tax, additions to tax, and interest that respondent assessed in April 2000.

The Court ofAppeals for the Second Circuit has held that section 7502 provides the sole exception to the requirement ofphysical delivery.4 Deutsch v.

Pursuant to section 7502(a), when a return is delivered by U.S.

In view of the foregoing, we hold that the petition was not ifiled within the requisite period prescribed by section 6213(a) a ; n ` d that this case must therefore be dismissed for lack o f jurisdiction.

We hold that the petition was not timely filed and thus this Court does not have jurisdiction to redetermine petitioner's 2002 tax liability, pursuant to either section 6213(a) or section 7502 .

In view of the foregoing, we hold that the petition in this case was not timely filed pursuant to either section 6213(a) or section 7502 .

Section 7502 provides exceptions to this general rule fo r returns received after, but postmarked by the USPS on or before, their due date--and even for returns not received at all if they were sent by registered or certified mail .

Section 7502 provides an exception to this rule.

In applying section 7502, when a taxpayer does not have documentary evidence that a document was mailed, we have in particular circumstances allowed indirect evidence to prove that the document was mailed.

Conclusion In view of the foregoing, we hold that the deficiency notice for 1998 was valid because it was sent to petitioner at her last known address.

Under section 7502(a), a petition required to be filed within the 90-day period but delivered to the Court outside that period will generally, if (1) sent via USPS (or a designated delivery service) (2) in a properly addressed envelope (3) bearing a postmark date that falls within the 90-day period, be deemed to have been delivered to this Court (and thus filed) on the postmark date. See Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230, 238 (2016); see also Pond v. United States, 69 F.4th 155, 162–63 (4th

The Treasury Department has issued regulations under section 7502. Treas. Reg. § 301.7502-1. The relevant provisions of these regulations are reproduced below: § 301.7502-1 Timely mailing of documents . . . treated as timely filing . . . . (a) General rule. Section 7502 provides that, if the requirements of that section are met, a document . . . is deemed to be filed . . . on the date of the postmark stamped on the envelope or other appropriate wrapper (envelope) in which the document . . . was

In urging that we nonetheless have jurisdiction, petitioners rely on the “timely mailed, timely filed” rule in section 7502. It sets forth the general rule that, for any document “delivered by United States mail . . . the date of the United States postmark stamped on the cover . . . shall be deemed to be the date of delivery.” § 7502(a)(1). Petitioners did not send their Petition to the Court by U.S. mail, but rather used FedEx, a private delivery service. Section 7502(f), captioned “Treatment o

1.6015-5(a), Income Tax Regs.° We thus consider these words to have equivalent effect and hold that section 7502 applies to the word "made" in section 6015(e)(1)(A)(i)(II) in the same way as it applies to the word "filed". Because petitioner's Form 8857 relates to her 2011 taxable year and was filed before respondent initiated any collection action with respect to that year (indeed, before respondent even issued thejoint notice ofdeficiency to petitioner and Mr. Nguyen with respect to that year)

1030, the Commissionerupdatedthe list of companies and classes ofdelivery service that constitute designated private - 7 - delivery services for purposes ofsection 7502. Thus, effective January 1, 2005, and insofar as UPS is concerned, the list ofdesignated private delivery services is as follows: UPS Next Day Air, UPS Next Day Air Saver, UPS 2nd Day Air, UPS 2nd Day Air A.M., UPS Worldwide Express Plus, and UPS Worldwide Express. See sec. 7502(f); Notice 2004-83, supra. UPS Ground has not been

Alternatively, section 301.7502-1(c)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs., provides as follows: Registered or certified mail. Ifthe document or payment is sent by U.S. registered mail, the date ofregistration ofthe document or payment is treated as the postmark date. Ifthe document or payment is sent by U.S. certified mail and the sender's receiptM is postmarked by the postal employee to whom the document or payment is presented, the date ofthe U.S. postmark on the receipt is treated as the postmark date

1030 (2004 notice), the Commissioner updated the list ofcompanies and classes ofdelivery service that constitute designated private delivery services for purposes ofsection 7502. Thus, effective January 1, 2005, and insofar as FedEx is concerned, the list ofdesignated private delivery services was as follows: FedEx Priority Overnight, FedEx Standard Overnight, FedEx 2 Day, FedEx International Priority, and FedEx Internätional First. The 2004 notice expressly states that FedEx is not designated w

301.7502-1(c) (1) (ii), Proced. & Admin. Regs. With regard to foreign registered mail, section 752.13 of the U.S. Postal Service International Mail Manual states as follows: "All mail registered by the country of origin must be handled in the domestic First-Class Mail mailstream from the exchange office to the office of delivery." Thus, once foreign registered mail arrives at the exchange office in the United States, such mail is considered to have been deposited with the domestic mail service.

Respondent moves to dismiss this case on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed WAY ED, MAR 2 9 2007 2- by section 6213(a) or section 7502 .1 As explained below, we shall grant respondent's motion to dismiss .

Section 7502 Section 7502(a), the so-called timely-mailing/timely-filing rule, provides, in relevant part: SEC. 7502(a). GENERAL Rule.— (1) Date op delivery. — If any return, claim, statement, or other document required to be filed * * * within a prescribed period or on or before a prescribed date under authority of any provision of the internal re

ert B. Nadler, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION COLVIN, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502. We hold that the petition was timely filed because it was timely sent. See sec. 7502(a), (f). Thus, we will deny respondent’s motion. Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 1999. Background A. Petitioner and th

Accordingly, petitioner’s mailing of his return did not come within the provisions of section 7502 and the filing of his return would have been untimely even if the return had been mailed on the due date.

Section 7502 generally provides that a return which is timely mailed will be treated as filed on the date it is mailed. However, this rule does not apply in petitioner's case because she admits to mailing her return on August 20, 1993, 4 days after the prescribed, extended date for filing the return. Sec. 7502(a)(2). We therefore find that petition

Without an extension from April 15, 1990, up to or beyond - 39 - September 20, 1990, section 7502 does not apply, and the filing date is the date received by the IRS, September 24, 1990.

ions, therefore, turns on when the return is deemed filed. Filing, generally, "is not complete until the document is delivered and received." United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73, 76 (1916). This general presumption, however, is modified by - 8 - section 7502. Section 7502(a)(1) provides that if a document is delivered to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) at the proper address after its due date by U.S. mail, then in certain circumstances the date of postmark shall be the date of delivery. Se

If a petition is received after the 90-day period, it will be deemed filed on the date of the United States postmark stamped on the envelope if the requirements of section 7502 are satisfied.

By virtue of section 7502, a petition that is timely mailed is deemed to be timely filed.

Petitioner claims that pursuant to section 7502, the date of postmark on the envelope containing the estate tax return is the date the estate tax return is deemed filed.

supra. However, that does not affect our conclusion because IRS publications are not legal authority. See Zimmerman v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 367, 371 (1978), affd. without 3 In light of our conclusion, we need not decide respondent's contention that sec. 7502 is the exclusive means to prove timely mailing. - 12 - published opinion 614 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1979); Green v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 456, 458 (1972). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to award petitioner a refund of his overpayment for

the postmark May 7, 1996, 89 days after the notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioner. The Court must decide whether the petition shall be deemed to be filed on the date of the postmark on the envelope, as permitted in certain circumstances by section 7502. The postmark on the envelope was not made by the U.S. Postal Service. It was made by petitioner's private postage meter. If section 7502 applies, a document that is timely mailed is treated as timely filed. In order for section 7502 to a

Huff's testimony that he mailed petitioners' 1997 tax return to respondent on April 15, 1998, that section 7502 would then treat the postmark date as the date of filing,4 and that the period of limitations under section 6501 would then be shown to have run before respondent issued the subject notice of deficiency to them.

MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: This matter is before us on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within SERVED Mar 11 2020 - 2 - [*2] the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502.¹ As explained below, we will grant respondent's motion.

MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: This matter is before us on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within SERVED Jan 13 2020 - 2 - [*2] the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502.¹ As explained below, we will deny respondent's motion.

o. 2012-308, at *20 (discussing the Circuit split), the Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which this case would be appealable could it be appealed, has allowed the admission ofextrinsic evidence to prove the timely mailing ofa document under sec. 7502. See Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 489-491 (9th Cir. 1992). Absent compelling reasons to do otherwise, this Court applies the law in a manner consistent with the holdings of the Court ofAppeals to which an appeal ofits decision w

Under the "timely mailing, timely filing" rule ofsection 7502, petitioner is deemed to have filed his request on the date he mailed it.

at argument, petitioner cites section 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(B), Proced. & Admin. Regs., for the proposition that a postmark "which, although not made by the U.S. Postal Service still complies with - 6 - [*6] the timely mailing/timely filing rules ofI.R.C. §7502." In his Reply filed July 21, 2015, respondent challenges petitioner's reliance on the regulation, and in his Response filed August 3, 2015, petitioner defends it. Discussion The Tax Court is a court oflimitedjurisdiction, and it may exer

Respondent moves to dismiss this case on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502.¹ Attachedto respondent's motion was a Postal Service Form 3877.

Because the petition was not mailed within the prescribed 60-day period, section 7502 1s inapplicable.

MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502.1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

7502, a timely mailed petition may be treated as timely filed and, therefore, pet tioner timely petitioned this Court. his petition, petitioner states "The petitioner is not a 'citizen. || of the United States' * * * {The]: source of tàxation in this matter come {sic] from employment -for persona services in a foreign country and is excluded

With the benefit of the timely-mailing/timely-filing provision in section 7502, petitioners' petition would be deemed filed with the Court as of November 29, 2007, which is 49 days after the date of the notices of determination .

Section 7502 ( f) provides that the petition may similarly be deemed timely when the taxpayer uses a "designated delivery service" rather than the LISPS . The Commissioner has designated the private delivery service used by petitioner, FedEx Standard overnight, as such a service for the purpose of section 7502 . Notice 2004 - 83, 2004-2 C . B . 103

Respondent moves that this case be dismissed on the ground that the petition was not filed within SERVED JAN 16 2001, i - 2 - the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502 .' As explained below, we shall grant respondent's motion .

The timely-mailing/timely-filing provisions of section 7502 apply to - 8 - a motion for leave to file a motion to vacate a decision that is mailed and postmarked prior to, but received by the Court after, the expiration of the 90-day appeal period .

The timely-mailing/timely-filing provisions of section 7502 apply to a motion for leave to file a motion to vacate a decision that is mailed and postmarked prior to, but received by the Court after, the expiration of the 90-day appeal period .

Under section 7502, a timely mailed petition will be treated as though it were timely filed. Respondent bears the burden of proving by competent and persuasive evidence that the notice of deficiency was properly mailed. Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82, 90 (1990); August v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1535, 1536-1537 (1970). The act of mailing may be proven

iction on the ground that Ps' petition for redetermination was not timely filed. Secs. 6213(a), 7502(a) and (b), I.R.C. Ps contend that their petition was timely filed because it was mailed in accordance with the timely-mailing/timely-filing rule in sec. 7502, I.R.C., and the regulations prescribed thereunder. Ps further contend that because they satisfied the requirements of sec. 7491(a), I.R.C., the burden of proof shifts to R on the issue of whether Ps' petition was timely filed. R argues tha

es are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 2 - This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in section 6330(d) or section 7502. As explained below, we shall grant respondent’s motion to dismiss. Background The record reflects and/or the parties do not dispute the following: On October 31, 2002, respondent issued to petitioner a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing a

Accordingly, petitioners are not liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for 1994. Petitioners’ 1996 envelope in which their 1995 return was mailed was not available in the record. Mr. Reimer testified - 30 - that he mailed their 1996 return on August 15, 1996. The burden is on petitioners to prove that their return was fil

With regard to the taxable year 1999, respondent contends that this case should be dismissed on the ground that the petition was not - 2 - timely filed pursuant to section 6213(a) or section 7502.1 With regard to the taxable year 2000, respondent contends that this case should be dismissed on the ground that no notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, has been sent to petitioner, nor has respondent made an

Respondent contends that this case should be dismissed on the ground that the petition was not timely filed pursuant to section SERVED AUG 1 6 2(102 - 2 - 6213(a) or section 7502.¹ As discussed in detail below, we shall grant respondent's motion to dismiss.

In the motion, respondent asserts that this case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502.3 On March 26, 2002, petitioner filed a Notice of Objection to respondent’s motion.

Respondent contends that this case should be dismissed because the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502.3 Petitioners claim that their petition is timely because the envelope containing the petition bears a timely postmark date and is properly addressed with the correct postage.

, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION PAJAK, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) and section 7502. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 2 - Respondent determined deficiencies and

, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Respondent moved for dismissal on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time period prescribed in section 6213(a) or section 7502. Petitioner, in his objection to respondent’s motion, contends that the petition was deposited in the mail before the expiration of the 90-day period for filing.1 A hearing was held on the motion in Los Angeles, California. Petitioner resi

Discussion Respondent contends that this case should be dismissed as the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) and section 7502 and the regulations thereunder.1 The Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition.

ON OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE PAJAK, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court - 2 - on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502. Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the period relevant here. Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax in the amount of $110,253 for the taxable year 1995. The sole issue for dec

Section 7502 provides that, under certain circumstances, a timely-mailed petition will be treated as though it were timely filed. Section 7502(a) states in pertinent part: SEC. 7502(a). General Rule.–- (1) Date Of Delivery.–-If any return, claim, statement, or other document required to be filed, * * * within a prescribed period or on or before a p

Section 7502 provides that, in certain circumstances, a timely mailed petition will be treated as though it were timely filed. Where the postmark in question is made by a private postage meter, the provisions implementing the "timely mailing/timely filing" rule - 7 - are contained in section 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs., which

In either case, to obtain the benefits of section 7502, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving timely mailing.

r filing a timely petition with this Court. Petitioners contend that the private postmark affixed by the Mail Pouch demonstrates that they timely mailed the petition on April 23, 1998, and therefore are deemed to have timely filed the petition under section 7502. In the case of postmarks not made by the U.S. Postal Service or by a designated delivery service, section 7502 is applicable only if and to the extent provided by regulations prescribed by the Secretary. See sec. 7502(b). The regulation

If a petition is received after the 90-day period, the petition is deemed filed when mailed if the requirements of section 7502 are satisfied.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 7502, a petition to this Court would be deemed timely if filed on or before Monday, December 2, 1996, which was not a holiday in the District of Columbia.

Section 7502 provides that a timely mailed petition will be treated as timely filed in certain circumstances. In the case of an envelope bearing a postmark other than that of the Postal Service, section 7502 applies only to the extent provided by regulation. Sec. 7502(b). Where, as here, the envelope bears a private postage-meter postmark: 5 (1) t

However, in the case of privately metered mail, section 7502 applies "only if and to the extent provided by regulations prescribed by the Secretary." Sec.

This fact, coupled with the presumption of correctness of the notice of deficiency, entitles respondent to the presumption that the Form 2553 was timely by operation of section 7502, which deems a late delivered document to be filed on the date of the U.S.

Consequently, section 7502 is not applicable.

If a petition is received after the 90-day period, the petition is deemed filed when mailed if the requirements of section 7502 are satisfied.

amounts. Accordingly, to the extent petitioner can provide substantiation, we hold that such 3 In petitioner’s memorandum in objection to respondent’s Rule 155 computation, it asserts that its payment of its estate taxes was timely made pursuant to sec. 7502. Respondent concedes that the return was filed and the tax was paid timely. Accordingly, there is no issue before the Court in that respect. - 5 - amounts are to be allowed as deductions in the Rule 155 computation. Interpretation of SPA Th

The sole issue for decision is whether the petition in this case was - 2 - filed within the 90-day period prescribed by section 6213(a)1 as augmented by section 7502 and the regulations thereunder.

miss this case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a)1 or 1 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of section 7502. On August 18, 1995, petitioner filed a response to respondent's motion, stating that the envelope in which the petition was mailed reflected a mailing date from Birmingham, Alabama, of June 15, 1995, which was within the 90-day period fo

ry time for a properly addressed envelope sent from New York, New York, to Washington, D.C., is 3 days. Respondent bases her motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioner failed to file his petition within the time prescribed in section 6213(a) or section 7502. Petitioner filed an Objection to respondent's motion asserting that he timely mailed the petition and that, in his experience, the mailing time for large envelopes or "flats" between New York, New York, and Washington, D.C., is often as

Respondent con- tends that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by sec- tion 6213(a) and that the “timely mailed, timely filed” rule of section 7502 is unavailable on the facts of this case.1 We are not satisfied that respondent has met his burden to show that a valid Notice of Deficiency was issued to petitioner for tax year 2020.

ed the disaster conditions as “beginning on January 20, 2020, and continuing.” On September 2, 2020, R filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by I.R.C. § 6213(a) or I.R.C. § 7502. Ps contend that I.R.C. § 7508A(d), which provides for a mandatory 60-day extension of certain tax- related deadlines by reason of a federally declared disaster, operated in conjunction with the President’s declaration to automatically

5 [*5] With respect to the section 6662(a) penalties, respondent has met his initial burden of production. Section 6662(a) and (b)(1) penalties are applicable to any portion of an underpayment for which the taxpayer is negligent or disregards rules and/or regulations. These penalties also apply when taxpayers substantially understate their

Accordingly, the request was filed one day after the deadline set forth in the 2018 notice. Appeals determined that the hearing request was untimely on the basis of the April 22, 2021, deadline, and provided petitioner with an equivalent hearing under Treasury Regulation § 301.6320-1(i)(1), which petitioner had requested as an alternative t

The envelope in which the Petition was mailed to the Court does not bear a postmark. But assuming arguendo that petitioners mailed the envelope on October 8, 2022, the date on which they signed the letter we filed as their Petition, the mailing date would still be 138 days after the notice of deficiency was sent to them. Petitioners do not

10 [*10] Finally, respondent contends that petitioner failed to make estimated tax payments for 2000 through 2008. On the basis of the foregoing arguments respondent contends that petitioner fraudulently understated his income and tax liabilities on his 2005 through 2007 income tax returns with the intent to evade tax. Accordingly,

urn is considered filed when it is “delivered, in the appropriate form, to the specific individual or individuals identified in the Code or Regulations.” Allnutt v. Commissioner, 523 F.3d 406, 413 (4th Cir. 2008), aff’g T.C. Memo. 2002-311; see also sec. 7502 (implicitly equating filing with delivery). A valid return is deemed filed on the day it is delivered, regardless of whether it is accepted by the Commissioner. See Blount v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 383, 387 (1986) (holding that the period of

The return itself, which shows that it was “returned for signature” on May 3, 2018, supplies no evidence of timely filing. 3Traditionally, the filing deadline for individual tax returns is April 15. See sec. 6072(a). However, if a filing deadline falls on a weekend or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia, the deadline is extended

7502 (implicitly equating filing with delivery); Allnutt v. Commissioner, 523 F.3d 406, 412-413 (4th Cir. 2008), afg T.C. Memo. 2002- 311; Miller v. United States, 784 F.2d 728, 730 (6th Cir. 1986); Hotel Equities Corp. v. Commissioner, 546 F.2d 725, 727 (7th Cir. 1976), a_Tg 65 T.C. 528 (1975). This follows from the requirement in section 650

spondent conceded the sec. 6663 penalties for the years in issue. 3Pursuant to sec. 6213(a), a petition for redetermination ofa deficiency must be filed with this Court within 90 days after the notice ofdeficiency is mailed to the taxpayer. See also sec. 7502; Rule 34(a); sec. 301.7502-1(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs. On September 21, 2017, the Court rendered an Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in which we addressed, among other things, the timeliness of petitioners' filing. We concluded that the r

301.6330-1(c)(2), Q&A-C1, C3, C4, Proced. & Admin. Regs. In their hearing request petitioners alleged no inability to pay and expressed no interest in a collection alternative. Nor did they dispute that their 2015 return showed an underpayment oftax. Rather, they asserted that they were entitled to a 2Petitioners attached to their r

delivery of"any * * * document required to be filed * * * under authority ofany provision ofthe internal revenue laws"); sec. 301.7502-1(b)(1)(iii), Proced. & Admin. Regs. (defining "document", for purposes ofthe "timely mailed, timely filed" rule ofsec. 7502, to include petitions filed with the Tax Court). -11- [*11] proper allocation ofthose items among its partners. Section 6226(f) also grants usjurisdiction to determine "the applicability ofany penalty * * * which relates to an adjustment to

MEMORANDUM OPINION VASQUEZ, Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed SERVED Apr 28 2016 - 2 - [*2] within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502.¹ As explained below, we will grant respondent's motion to dismiss.

301.7502-1(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs. 5The IRS contends that Drilling did not attach a Form W-2 to the Form 1040EZ. Drilling contends he did attach a Form W-2. Drilling did not testify that he attached a Form W-2 to the Form 1040EZ. Nor did he provide documentary evidence that he attached a Form W-2 to the Form 1040EZ. The Form 1040

- 3 - [*3] I. The Audit The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) selected petitioners' 2005 and 2006 Federal income tax returns for audit.3 The IRS did not contact petitioners in writing about the audit before November 1, 2007. Tax Compliance Officer Valerie Goggil (TCO Goggil) was assigned petitioners' audit. Her case history reports (report

MEMORANDUM OPINION PUGH, Judge: This case is before us on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6330(d) or section 7502.¹ ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times.

Respondent seeks dismissal on the ground that the petition was not timely filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or SERVED MAY 3 0 2013 - 2 - [*2] section 7502.1 Petitioners object to respondent's motion and contend that respondent did not issue a valid notice ofdeficiency for any ofthe years before the Court.2 Since, as discussed below, the petition was not filed within 90 days ofthe alleged mailing ofthe notice ofdeficiency, the case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

- 3 - [*3] that she ratified and affirmed the petition filed on August 26, 2008, and that "I like to claim innocent spouse relief" 3 Respondent subsequently determined that Mrs. Young was entitled to section 6015(c) innocent spouse relief. Mr. Young disagrees. The sole issue for decision is whether Mrs. Young is entitled to relieffromjo

titioner's competing motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The stated ground for respondent's motion to dismiss is that petitioner failed to file the petition instituting this case within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) as amplified by section 7502. Petitioner would have us dismiss the case on the grounds that the notice ofdeficiency is invalid because it was neither sent to petitioner's last known address nor received by petitioner with ample time to timely petition this Court. 'U

Although under section 7502 the date ofa legible U.S.

ioner pursuant to section 6015(e)(1) and Rules 320-325. On May 3, 2012, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction (Motion To Dismiss) on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6015(e) or section 7502. On May 15, 2012, petitioner filed an Objection to respondent's Motion To Dismiss (Objection). On May 30, 2012, respondent filed a Response to petitioner's Objection. On August 7, 2012, we issued an Order requiring the parties to suppleme

In any event, petitioner claimed a refund in her 2007 return. We also note that both respondent's examiner and respondent's Appeals officer found that petitioner had made a good faith effort to comply with the tax laws after her taxable year 2003, despite the fact that petitioner had paid late the tax for her taxable year 2006. On the re

before the Court on respondent ' s Motion To Dismiss For. Lack Of Jurisdiction , filed February 25, 2010 . Respondent moves to dismiss this case on the ground that the .petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section ,;1, 6213 (a) or section 7502 . For reasons discussed hereinafter, we shall grant respondent's motion . Background At the time that the petition was filed, petitioner resided ,in the State of Oregon . On October 7, 2009, respondent sent petitioner a notice of deficienc

er weekend causing delays ." The parties - 6 - stipulated that petitioners' 2005 return was "filed" on April 18, 2006, and there is no evidence to show reasonable cause . There is also no evidence to invoke the timely mailing-timely filing rules of section 7502 . There is nothing in the record to indicate whether the return was mailed to respondent or how the April 18, 2006, filing date was determined . We are therefore required to hold petitioners liable for the addition to tax .2 However, beca

In his motion, respondent contends that this case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6330(d) or section 7502 .1 On June 23, 2008, petitioner filed a Notice Of Objection to respondent's motion .

Respondent has no record of the additional extension, and petitioners’ evidence on the point is less than compelling. Respondent’s imposition of the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax is sustained, but in an amount that takes into account the August 15, 1998, extended due date of petitioners’ 1997 return. Respondent also imposed a sectio

Eisler, pro se . Jason M . Kuratnik, for respondent . CHABOT, Judae : This matter is before us on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6330(d)' or section 7502 . The instant case is a collection case 'Unless indicated otherwise, all section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect for proceedings commenced on the day the petition in the instant case was filed

Nonetheless, a petition that the Court receives and files after the expiration of the 90-day period prescribed by section 6213(a) may be deemed timely filed under section 7502 and the regulations thereunder .

The timely- mailing/timely-filing provisions of section 7502 apply to a motion for leave to file a motion to vacate a decision that is mailed and postmarked prior to, but received by the Court after, the expiration of the 90-day appeal period .

The timely-mailing/timely-filin g provisions of section 7502 apply to a motion for leave to file a motion toyvacate a decision that is mailed and postmarked prior to, but received by the Court after, the expiration of the 90-day appeal period .

Petitioner's motion for leave was postmarked and mailed prior to the expiration of the 90-day appeal period .' The timely-mailing/timely-filing provisions of section 7502 apply to a motion for leave to file a motion to vacate a decision that is mailed and postmarked prior to, but received by the Court after, the expiration of the 90-day appeal period .

Section 7502 (a) provides that in general, timely mailing is treated as timely filing if a petition is delivered to the Court by U.S . mail after the period prescribed for its filing and the U . S. postmark date stamped on the envelope is within the appropriate period . 1( . . . continued) Internal Revenue Code . 2 When this petition was filed, pet

The timely- mailing/timely-filing provisions of section 7502 apply to a motion for leave to file a motion to vacate a decision that is mailed and postmarked prior to, but received by the Court after, the expiration of the 90-day appeal period .

The timely- mailing/timely-filing provisions of section 7502 apply to a motion for leave to file a motion to vacate a decision that is mailed and postmarked prior to, but received by the Court after, the expiration of the 90-day appeal period.

Raup, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION . MARVEL, Judge: This matter is before the Court on espondent' s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6330(d) (1)¹ or section 7502. ¹Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time petitioners filed the petition. . SERVED JEB 2 8 2005 Background Petitioners resided in Metuchen, New Jersey, when the . petition

If the written request is properly addressed, with postage prepaid, and is postmarked within the applicable 30-day response period, in accordance with section 7502, the request will be considered timely even if it is not received by the IRS office that issued the notice until after the 30-day response period.

27, 2003. In the petition, petitioner listed the Kansas address as his current address. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground the petition was not filed within the 30-day period prescribed in section 6330(d) or section 7502. Petitioner filed an objection to respondent’s motion, asserting that he did not receive either of the notices in question until August 2003, at which time he promptly filed a petition with the Court. Petitioner also questioned why the co

8. Petitioners have not argued, and there is nothing in the record to indicate, that such failure was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. Respondent’s determination that petitioners filed their return in April of 2000, and therefore 3Sec. 7502 describes two examples of evidence that could have been used by petitioners. First, if any return is required to be filed by a certain date, and is received after that date, the date of the U.S. postmark shall be deemed the date of delivery

alty of perjury, petitioner apparently reiterates this position on brief, as follows: Petitioner duly filed his 1998 and 1999 income tax returns which were signed under penalty of perjury by petitioner, timely filed pursuant to 26 United States Code § 7502 through the United States mails, and received in evidence; respondent failed to demonstrate that any request for substantiation of the deductions thereupon taken was made of petitioner.

es are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 2 - This matter is before the Court on respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6330(d) or section 7502. As explained below, we shall grant respondent’s motion to dismiss. Background On Friday, October 18, 2002, the Internal Revenue Service Appeals Office in Atlanta, Georgia, issued to petitioner a Notice Of Determination Concerning Collect

spondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. In the motion, respondent asserts that this case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502. Respondent’s motion states - 3 - that respondent contacted UPS by telephone, submitted the tracking number appearing on the envelope bearing the petition in this case, and was informed that the envelope was delivered to UPS on Friday, A

One requirement imposed by section 7502 is, in essence, that a return will be deemed delivered on the postmark date only if the return is mailed on or before its due date. In other words, timely mailing is timely filing. See Emmons v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 342, 346 (1989), affd. 898 F.2d 50 (5th Cir. 1990). “Filing, generally, ‘is not co

7502 (a) (1) and (2) (A) . m c o 8 O O O~ ¬J 1 O O FU O rr (D n 1 Cc T1

Marty J. Dama, for respondent. - 2 - OPINION COHEN, Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6330(d)(1) or section 7502. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. At the time the petition in this case was

7502 (timely mailing is timely filing). Based on AVA’s substantial compliance with section 301.6231(a)(7)- 1T(e), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., we find that the September 30 letter was filed on September 30, 1988. The September 30 letter was, therefore, effective on September 30, 1988, the day the AVA Form 872-P for 1985 was signed by Mr.

or respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION PAJAK, Special Trial Judge: This case comes before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the ava MAR142006 018 - 2 - Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioners contend t

Respondent contends that this - 3 - case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502.1 Petitioner filed an objection to respondent's motion to dismiss, repeating the allegations set forth in the petition.

7502 (timely mailing is timely filing). Based on AVA’s substantial compliance with section 301.6231(a)(7)- 1T(e), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., we find that the September 30 letter was filed on September 30, 1988. The September 30 letter was, therefore, effective on September 30, 1988, the day the AVA Form 872-P for 1985 was signed by Mr.

7502 (timely mailing is timely filing). Based on AVA’s substantial compliance with section 301.6231(a)(7)- 1T(e), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., we find that the September 30 letter was filed on September 30, 1988. The September 30 letter was, therefore, effective on September 30, 1988, the day the AVA Form 872-P for 1985 was signed by Mr.

7502 (timely mailing is timely filing). Based on AVA’s substantial compliance with section 301.6231(a)(7)- 1T(e), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., we find that the September 30 letter was filed on September 30, 1988. The September 30 letter was, therefore, effective on September 30, 1988, the day the AVA Form 872-P for 1985 was signed by Mr.

- 5 - Petitioners failed to present any corroborating evidence as to the purported mailing of Form 2553. See Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that under the common- law mailbox rule, a rebuttable presumption of delivery arises where there is evidence of timely mailing). As a paralegal who owned a bus

ken with someone in respondent's office. - 5 - In response to the petition, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the 90-day filing period prescribed in section 6213(a) or section 7502. On August 7, 1998, petitioners filed an objection to respondent's motion to dismiss repeating the allegations contained in the petition. On August 31, 1998, petitioners filed a supplemental objection, again repeating the allegations cont

1986) (holding that the provisions of section 7502 supersede and extinguish the common law presumption of delivery).

7502 (providing that timely mailing will be considered to be timely filing under certain circumstances, which includes a showing of a timely U.S. postmark). Petitioners failed to show that they mailed their return or - 9 - that it was received by the IRS, prior to or on the due date. Nor have petitioners shown reasonable cause for the late fi

train, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.6 Respondent's motion is premised on the ground that, for the taxable years 1988, 1989, and 1991, the petition was not timely filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502. For the taxable year 1990, respondent's motion is premised on the ground that respondent is unaware of any notice of deficiency having been sent to petitioner for that year.7 5 The exhibits to petitioner's motion include copies of 41 do

Under conditions set forth in section 7502, for purposes of computing the 90-day filing period, timely mailing of the petition by the taxpayer is timely filing.

- 13 - Table 1 (1991) Change To Claimed On Notice Def. Adjustment Net Stipulated Item Tax Return Adjustment Per Settlement Adjustment Sched. C Depreciation $11,676 $11,676 ($41,233) ($29,557) Interest 646 646 (646) -0- Legal, other professional 27,422 27,422 -0- 27,422 Tax 70,006 70,006 -0- 70,006 Other deductions 461 -0- -0- -0- Sched.

1986) (holding that the provisions of section 7502 supersede and extinguish the common law presumption of delivery); accord Deutsch v.

w. OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502. Background On June 11, 1993, respondent sent petitioner duplicate original notices of deficiency for the taxable years 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1989 (the first notices of deficiency). In the first notices of deficiency, respondent determin

Under conditions set forth in section 7502, for purposes of 1(...continued) effect for the years at issue.

pondent was not sent to her last known address within the meaning of section 6212(b)(1). Respondent's position is that this Court lacks jurisdiction because petitioner failed to file a timely petition within the time prescribed in section 6213(a) or section 7502. Background Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income taxes for the taxable years 1979, 1980, and 1981, and additions to tax as follows: Addition to Tax Year Deficiency Sec. 6653(b) Sec. 6654 1979 $6,575 $3,287 $2

Respondent concedes this issue. Issue 5. Penalty Under Section 6662(a) Respondent determined that petitioners' underpayment of tax for 1990 was due to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations, subjecting them to the accuracy-related penalty of section 6662(a). Section 6662 provides for an accuracy-related penalty equal to 20 perce

RIAL JUDGE WOLFE, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent's position is that petitioners did not file their petition within the time prescribed in section 6213(a) or section 7502. Petitioners object to respondent's motion and contend that respondent failed to issue a valid notice of deficiency under section 6212. Petitioners argue that the notice in question was not mailed to their last known address. A hearing w

references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - NEXTRECORD - the ground that the petition was not timely filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502. Petitioner objects to respondent's motion on the ground that respondent did not issue a valid notice of deficiency for any of the years before the Court.2 The issues that we must decide are: (1) Whether respondent actually mailed notices