§7503 — Time for performance of acts where last day falls on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday

183, 187-188 (2002) (overruling various challenges by a taxpayerto the introduction into evidence ofa certified mail list--the equivalent ofa USPS Form 3877--by the Commissioner).

7503. Petitioner's motion was mailed on August 7, 2017, and received by this Court on the following day. Because the postmark on the envelope in which the motion was mailed is dated after August 4, 2017, the rule of section 7502(a) that a document is treated as timely filed when timely mailed does not apply.

§ 301.7503-1(a) (providing that “[s]ection 7503 applies to acts to be performed by the taxpayer (such as, the filing of any return of, and the payment of, any income .

- 15 - [*15] Section 7503 provides in pertinent part: "When the last day prescribed under [the] authority ofthe internal revenue laws for performing any act falls on [a] Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, the performance ofsuch act shall be considered timely ifit is performed on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Su

Section 7503 provides: "When the last day prescribed under authority ofthe internal revenue laws for performing any act falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, the performance ofsuch act shall be considered timely ifit is performed on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday." F

Section 7503 provides that when the due date of a prescribed act under the Code falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, performanc e of the act is considered timely if it is performed on the next business day .

Because petitioner timely filed his 1998 income tax return, we hold that he is not liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).

We hold that an employer such as petitioner has 91 days from the issuance of the final revocation letter to petition this Court for a declaratory judgment with respect thereto.

Respondent disagrees, claiming that section 7502 does not apply because pursuant to section 7503 the delivery of petitioner’s estate tax return was considered timely.

v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ————— Docket No. 15143-22. Filed November 2, 2023. ————— R issued a notice of deficiency to P. P filed her Petition with this Court three days after the expiration of the 90-day period, as extended by I.R.C. § 7503, to file a petition disputing the notice of deficiency under I.R.C. § 6213(a). R moved to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. Any appeal of our decision by P would presumptively lie in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Ci

301.6330-1(c)(2), Q&A-C4, Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. at 9-10, 10 n.9; Weiss v. Commissioner, 147 T.C. at 189; sec. 301.6330-1(c)(3), Example (1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. In addition, if the CDP hearing request is delivered to the proper 11A “CDP Notice” for purposes of the regulations includes a

Peti- tioner's request, which was received by the Appeals Office on April 25, was there- fore timely. We conclude that the collection action reflected in the decision letter - 7 - [*7] is a "determination" for purposes ofsection 6330(d) and that we have jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. See Craig, 119 T.C. at 259. B. Summary Judgmen

Petitioner is a corporation. Upon revocation ofits tax-exempt status retro- actively to January 1, 2002, it became obligated to file a corporate income tax re- turn on Form 1120 for 2002. Under section 6601(a), interest runs from the "last date prescribed for payment." Under section 6151(a), the "last date prescribed for payment" is the

Because the 150th day fell on Sunday, November 2, 2014, section 7503 extends the deadline until the next day, November 3, 2014.

Because the 150th day fell on Sunday, November 2, 2014, section 7503 extends the deadline until the next day, November 3, 2014.

The central question, therefore, is whether March 14 was within 30 days ofthe levy notice. Ifit was, the running ofthe collection period oflimitations was suspended and continues to be suspended until 8Although petitioner on the 1986 CDP Form incorrectly listed tax years 1999-2001 rather than 1989-1991, he corrected this error by filing,

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 th

By virtue of section 7503, the 30-day filing period within which petitioner Paul L.

Petitioners’ research curiously failed to uncover section 7503, which states that “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.” Even when the Commissioner fails to state the peti

- 15 - Petitioner did not dispute in her petition or address at trial respondent's determination that she is liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax. We therefore find that she has failed to prove that her failure to timely file her return was not due to willful neglect or that such failure was due to reasonable cause. Accordi

The FPA issued on December 1, 2023, was untimely. 15 IV. Commissioner’s Out-of-Time Motions Belatedly, the Commissioner offers an alternative argument in the event the Court finds that the FPA was untimely. The Commissioner filed two Motions, one seeking leave to file an amendment to answer out of time and the other seeking to suppl

iling due date for calendar-year-2015 returns was April 15, 2016. § 6072(a). Because this day was District of Columbia Emancipation Day, and because the next two days were Saturday and Sunday, a filing made on April 18, 2016, is ‘considered timely.’ § 7503.”). 4 [*4] LLC (BoundlessRise), that contracted with Masimo to provide search engine optimization services. She explained that Masimo’s management was upset when it learned of petitioner’s ownership of BoundlessRise and began an investigation;

§§ 1.6072-1(a)(1), 1.6081-1(a); see also § 7503 (extending April 15 deadline for holidays and weekends).

Caan had until January 25, 2016, to contribute the P&A Interest to another IRA. We acknowledge that Mr. Caan executed a request in October 2015 to transfer all assets in his two UBS IRAs to Merrill Lynch and that all assets other than the P&A Interest were transferred through ACATS shortly thereafter. Troublesome here is how the P

An individual taxpayer is generally required to file a return for a given year by April 15 of the following year, see § 6072(a), or by October 15 if an extension was secured, see § 6081(a); see also § 7503 (extending the deadline until the following business day if the due date falls on a weekend or a legal holiday).

10, 2022).27 27 See § 6072(a) (providing that a person required to make a return of income under section 6012 shall file such return on April 15); § 7503 (providing that under the Code, where the day prescribed to perform an act falls on a legal holiday in the District 32 [*32] For the years before she received a judgment of dissolution, Ms.

If the notice of deficiency specifies a last day for filing that is later than the 90th day, then the deadline by which to file a petition is extended to the date specified. I.R.C. § 6213(a); Rochelle v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 356 (2001), aff’d, 293 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2002). A. A Petition Is Generally Filed when Received. A petition

If the Commissioner sets forth on a notice of deficiency a “[l]ast day to file petition with US tax court” that is later than the 90th day, then the due date is extended to that later date. I.R.C. § 6213(a). Using either of these rules, and ignoring any other circumstances, Mr. Sall’s deadline for filing a petition would have fallen

The Nutts’ last day to file their Petition was Monday, July 18, 2022. Although the notice of deficiency was actually mailed on April 14, 2022, the notice stated that the last date to file a petition was July 18, 2022, and section 6213(a) allows the Nutts to rely on the date stated in the notice. A petition is ordinarily “filed” when

7503; Rule 25(b). Therefore, January 16, 2019, was the last day for petitioners to timely file a petition with this Court. See sec. 6213(a). The petition was received and filed by the Court on January 28, 2019. The envelope containing the petition is a priority mail express envelope bearing a U.S. Postal Service postmark dated January 14, 2019

9Under section 7503, when “the last day prescribed under the authority of the internal revenue laws for performing any act falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, the performance of such act will be considered timely if it is performed on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday.” - 17 - Section 301.6330-1(i)(2),

Accordingly, the deadline for individual taxpay- ers to file returns for 2015 was extended to April 18, 2016, the following Monday. - 25 - [*25] garded in determining whether her 2015 return was timely filed. Petitioner was in a combat zone from January 1 through April 19, 2016, the date of her departure from Kandahar Airfield. In deter

In 2018, April 15 fell on a Sunday and April 16 was Emancipation Day, which the District of Columbia recognizes as a holiday. Accordingly, the deadline for individual taxpayers to file returns for 2017 was extended to April 17, 2018, the following Tuesday. - 9 - [*9] Petitioner does not contend that his failure to file his return on tim

Om signed the 2004 return on that date. Anjali’s signature is also dated October 17, 2005. The return was mailed to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on November 10, 2005, and received by the IRS on November 14, 2005. - 9 - [*9] VI. The Sonis’ Authorized Representative An examination of the 2004 return ensued. On March 20, 2008, during

Section 7502(a) provides a "timely mailed, timely filed" rule. A document delivered by U.S. mail is timely mailed if"the postmark date falls * * * on or be- fore the prescribed date" and the document is mailed, on or before that date, in an envelope with "postage prepaid, properly addressed" to the recipient. Sec. 7502(a)(2). Section 750

7503; Kasper v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 37, 45 (2011) (holding that the 30-day period ofsec. 7623(b)(4) begins on the date that the determination is mailed or personally delivered to the whistleblower at his last known address). A taxpayertimely mails a petition to this Court when it is delivered to the U.S. Postal Service on or before the due

The petition was sent on June 10, 2013, by UPS 2nd Day Air A.M., which is a designated private delivery service, s_ee Notice 2004-83, 2004-2 C.B. 1030, and was received by the Court and filed on June 11, 2013. The petition was timely filed because it was sent by UPS 2nd Day Air A.M. on June 10. See id. Therefore, we will deny petitioner'

¹4Because the 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 tax returns are dated before the respective due dates--and because respondent failed to offer any other evidence to establish the filing dates for these returns--we find that respondent did not meet his burden ofproduction under sec. 7491(c) as to these years. - 35 - [*35] $128,201.00, $102,618.2

Petitioner's attempt to preserve his rights was one day late, and respondent assessed the TFRPs on March 24, 2014. Respondent received petitioner's certified letter on March 14, 2014. On May 6, 2014, respondent sent petitioner a Letter 1058, Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice ofYour Right to a Hearing. Petitioner submitted a timel

¹4Because the 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 tax returns are dated before the respective due dates--and because respondent failed to offer any other evidence to establish the filing dates for these returns--we find that respondent did not meet his burden ofproduction under sec. 7491(c) as to these years. - 35 - [*35] $128,201.00, $102,618.2

Because the 150th day fell on Sunday, November 2, 2014, section 7503 extends the deadline until the next day, November 3, 2014.

Petitioner timely filed her 2009 and 2010 Federal income tax returns. For purposes ofsection 6501, those returns were considered filed on the last day prescribed by law for the filing thereof. See sec. 6501(b)(1); sec. 301.6501(b)-1, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Petitioner is deemed to have filed her 2009 Federal income tax return on April 15,

- 18 - [*18] to the single noncomputational adjustment that the parties did not resolve before trial-that is, petitioners' claimed bases in the KCI shares at the time of their sale. Petitioners did not file a reply to the amendment to answer. At trial on May 6, 2014, the parties litigated the unresolved noncomputational adjustment as we

The companymade the followingfederal-employment-taxdeposits and payments from 2005 through 2010:6 Tax periodto which deposit Date ofdeposit or or nt Yg PM i 2005 $25,388.52 2005 4/19/05 2Q2005 47,463.04 11/14/05 3Q2005 33,238.20 2006 10/13/06 1Q2006 5,000.00 2007 4/10/07 IQ 2006 83 2 .32 4/10/07 7,944.20 5/22/07 2Q 2007 7,509.28 5/29/07

7503 (regarding the time for performance ofacts where the last day otherwise falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday). However, the petition was not received and filed by the Court until Monday, March 10, 2014. Thus, the petition was not timely filed and respondent's - 6 - [*6] motion must be granted unless the petition is deemed to hav

7503; Rule 25(b). Therefore, Friday, May 3, 2013, was the last day for petitioner to timely file a petition with this Court. See sec. 3(...continued) 2013, notice ofdeficiency is valid. 4 Ifa notice is addressed to a person outside ofthe United States, then a 150-day filing period applies in lieu ofthe 90-day period. Sec. 6213(a). - 6 - 6213(

A legal holiday includes any day that is a legal holiday in the District ofColumbia. Id. April 15, 2007, was a Sunday. April 16, 2007, was a legal holiday in the District of Columbia. Therefore, April 17, 2007, was the last day for Hoang to file his 2006 tax return. 5This part ofthis opinion, which describes portions ofExhibit 4-P, is no

7503; Rule 25(b). Therefore, July 7, 2011, was the last date for petitioners to timely file a petition in the Tax Court. See sec. 6213(a). However, the petition was not received and filed by the Court until Tuesday, July 12, 2011. A timely mailed petition may be treated as though it were timely filed. Sec. 7502(a). Thus, ifa petition is receiv

7503; Rule 25(a). evidence the date and fact of mailing the notice to a taxpayer")). However, there is some evidence of delivery of the notice to petitioner. In the context of a notice of deficiency, where a taxpayer receives actual notice without prejudicial delay and with sufficient time to file a petition, the Court has found that the noti

Specifically, section 7502(a) (1) provides that "the date of the United States postmark stamped on the cover in which such * * * document * * * is mailed shall be deemed to be the date of delivery".

The envelope in which the petition was delivered to the Court fid not bear a U.S. postmark nor, as the facts make clear, did the envelope even enter the domestic mail system of the United States in a timely fashion. The Court held that the petition was not timely filed. 5 The online Canada Post tracking feature is available at http://www

The second exception, embodied in Rule 25(a)(2)(B), is relevant, but essentially does nothing (in the context of the present case) other than echo the provisions of section 7503, which we have already mentioned .

2002-33 (notice of deficiency specifying July 4 as the last date to file a petition ignored the provisions of section 7503 regarding time for performance of acts where the last day falls on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday), affd.

file a notice of appeal runs from the entry of the order disposing of the motion or from the entry of a new decision, whichever is later . 5 June 11, 2006, the 90th day after the Court entered the order of dismissal, fell on a Sunday . Pursuant to sec. 7503 petitioner had until June 12, 2006, the following Monday, to file a notice of appeal . See also Fed . R. App . P. 26(a)(3) . While we recognize this extension of time to file a notice of appeal, we continue to refer to the period after we en

e to file a notice of appeal runs from the entry of the order disposing of the motion or from the entry of a new decision, whichever is later. June 11, 2006, the 90th day after the Court entered the order of dismissal, fell on a Sunday. Pursuant to sec. 7503 petitioner had until June 12, 2006, the following Monday, to file a notice of appeal. See also Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(3). While we recognize this extension of time to file a notice of appeal, we continue to refer to the period after we entere

The petition in this case, however, was mailed to the Court on March 20, 2004, and was received and filed on March 25, 2004. Consequently, we conclude that the petition was not timely filed. Petitioners' main contention, as we understand it, is that because the notice of determination was not mailed to them by certified or registered mai

It follows that the notice of deficiency dated March 24, 2004, upon which this case is based, was issued within the applicable 3-year period of limitations. Consistent with the preceding discussion, we shall grant respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment. To reflect the foregoing, An Order and Decision will be entered granting respondent

However, the petition in this case was not mailed to the Court until August 27, 2003, and was received and filed on September 4, 2003–-more than 8 months after the income tax notice was mailed. It follows that the petition was not timely filed and we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. See McCune v. Commissioner, 1

- 5 - administration. Petitioners checked the box for “Deferred Payment Offer (Offered amount will be paid over the life of the collection statute)”. Petitioners offered to pay the tax deficiency without paying any penalty or interest. Petitioners listed the monthly payment as $300 for a total of 27 months. After submitting the offer in

7503 (dealing with time for performance of acts where last day falls on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday); see also sec. 301.6330-1(c)(2), Q&A-C3 and Q&A- C4, Proced. & Admin. Regs.; cf. sec. 301.6320-1(c)(2), Q&A-C3 and Q&A-C4, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Petitioner contends that the 30-day period did not expire on November 13, 2000, because he

ribed in section 6330(a)(2) and (3)(B) for the filing of a timely request for an Appeals Office hearing in respect of the notice of intent to levy expired on Monday, March 12, 2001. See sec. 301.6330- 1(c)(2) Q&A-C3, Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also sec. 7503. Because petitioners’ request for an Appeals Office hearing was not timely in respect of the notice of intent to levy, the Appeals Office was not obliged to provide petitioners with the administrative hearing contemplated by section 6330 in

Consequently, and by virtue of section 7503, the 30-day filing period expired on Monday, April 30, 2001–-a date that was not a legal holiday in the District of Columbia.

- 23 - Petitioner’s briefs contained no argument with respect to the additions to tax. Because the predicate facts for the late-filing additions were stipulated, and petitioner’s attorney repeatedly argued at the trial that petitioner relied on its accountant in tax filing matters, we surmise that petitioner challenges the additions on

- 8 - year in issue. In this regard, petitioner refers to the requirements under section 6223. As previously mentioned, under the facts of this case the address to which respondent mailed the notice of deficiency is irrelevant because petitioner received the notice and filed a timely petition. Regardless, as pertinent here, section 6223

5 The 90-day period for filing a petition with the Court expired on Nov. 2, 1998, which date was not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday in the District of Columbia. See sec. 7503. Although the petition was not received until Nov. 5, 1998, it was deemed filed on Nov. 2, 1998, under sec. 7502(a). - 20 - 3. Dismissal of Docket No. 1372-9

5 The 90-day period for filing a petition with the Court expired on Nov. 2, 1998, which date was not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday in the District of Columbia. See sec. 7503. Although the petition was not received until Nov. 5, 1998, it was deemed filed on Nov. 2, 1998, under sec. 7502(a). - 20 - 3. Dismissal of Docket No. 1372-9

- 6 - hold that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6654. Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

- 8 - Section 6662(a) imposes a 20-percent penalty on the portion of an underpayment attributable to any one of various factors, one of which is negligence or disregard of rules or regulations. Sec. 6662(b)(1). Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty imposed by section 6662(a) for her underpaymen

to $6,007 of the $8,543 in expenses claimed on the Schedule C, thereby resolving the substantiation issue raised in the notice of deficiency. 3 Because April 15, 1995, fell on a Saturday, a return filed on the following Monday is deemed timely under sec. 7503. -- 33 -- automatic extension of time to file his return which extended the time to file until August 15, 1995. Sec. 6081; sec. 1.6081- 4(a)(1), Income Tax Regs. Petitioner filed his 1994 return on October 19, 1995. Included with the return

rought for judicial review of the FPAA, and if such an action is brought, until the decision of the court becomes final, and (2) for 1 year thereafter. The period during which an action may be brought is generally 150 days. Sec. 6226(a) and (b); see sec. 7503. Section 6229(f) provides that if partnership items become nonpartnership items before the expiration of the limitations period otherwise provided, then the limitations period shall not expire before the date that is 1 year after the date o

Thus, petitioners' 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992 returns should have been filed, respectively, on April 15, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993. Because April 15, 1990, was a Sunday, petitioners' 1989 return should have been filed on April 16, 1990. Their returns, therefore, were filed late. The addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) is imposed wh

ay in the District of Columbia or the State of 1The Court ordered simultaneous briefs. However, although the Government filed its opening brief, the Court has been informed that petitioners do not intend to file any brief. - 3 - Massachusetts.2 See sec. 7503. However, petitioners did not file their 1991 joint return until October 26, 1994, after individual notices of deficiency had already been issued to each spouse. During the taxable year 1991, Barry was a self-employed consultant. On Schedule

Respondent issued the notice of deficiency on June 29, 1995, 73 days later. However, on August 24 and November 30, 1994, respondent issued summonses to International Savings Bank requesting information with respect to petitioners' 1991 taxable year. Petitioners filed motions to quash both summonses in the U.S. District Court for the Sout

rought for judicial review of the FPAA, and if such an action is brought, until the decision of the court becomes final, and (2) for 1 year thereafter. The period during which an action may be brought is generally 150 days. Sec. 6226(a) and (b); see sec. 7503. Section 6229(f) provides that if partnership items become nonpartnership items before the expiration of the limitations period otherwise provided, then the limitations period shall not expire before the date that is 1 year after the date o

rought for judicial review of the FPAA, and if such an action is brought, until the decision of the court becomes final, and (2) for 1 year thereafter. The period during which an action may be brought is generally 150 days. Sec. 6226(a) and (b); see sec. 7503. Section 6229(f) provides that if partnership items become nonpartnership items before the expiration of the limitations period otherwise provided, then the limitations period shall not expire before the date that is 1 year after the date o

rought for judicial review of the FPAA, and if such an action is brought, until the decision of the court becomes final, and (2) for 1 year thereafter. The period during which an action may be brought is generally 150 days. Sec. 6226(a) and (b); see sec. 7503. Section 6229(f) provides that if partnership items become nonpartnership items before the expiration of the limitations period otherwise provided, then the limitations period shall not expire before the date that is 1 year after the date o

rought for judicial review of the FPAA, and if such an action is brought, until the decision of the court becomes final, and (2) for 1 year thereafter. The period during which an action may be brought is generally 150 days. Sec. 6226(a) and (b); see sec. 7503. Section 6229(f) provides that if partnership items become nonpartnership items before the expiration of the limitations period otherwise provided, then the limitations period shall not expire before the date that is 1 year after the date o

Section 7503 then provides that if April 15 falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the due date will be the next day not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. The due date for petitioners' 1988 return was on April 15, 1989, except that such date was a Saturday. Therefore, under section 7503, the due date for petitioners' income tax return w