SCOTUS Reports

Tag: Certified Mail

  • Wiley Ramey v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 156 T.C. No. 1 (2021): Timeliness of Collection Due Process Hearing Requests

    Wiley Ramey v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 156 T. C. No. 1 (2021)

    In Wiley Ramey v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the U. S. Tax Court ruled that the IRS’s mailing of a notice of intent to levy to a taxpayer’s last known address by certified mail triggers the 30-day period for requesting a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing, regardless of whether the taxpayer personally receives it. The court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because the taxpayer’s request for a hearing was untimely, highlighting the strict statutory requirements for CDP hearings and the implications for taxpayers’ rights to judicial review.

    Parties

    Wiley Ramey, the petitioner, represented himself pro se throughout the litigation. The respondent, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, was represented by Joanne H. Kim, Justine S. Coleman, and Jordan S. Musen.

    Facts

    Wiley Ramey had a tax debt of $247,033 for the taxable years 2012 to 2016. On July 13, 2018, the IRS sent a Notice LT11 (Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing) to Ramey at his address, 9520 Castillo Drive, San Simeon, CA, via certified mail, return receipt requested. This address was shared with several businesses. The notice was left at the address on July 16, 2018, by a USPS letter carrier and signed for by an individual named Joel, who was not Ramey’s employee or authorized to receive his mail. Ramey received the notice shortly before the 30-day deadline but submitted his request for a CDP hearing on August 16, 2018, which was after the deadline of August 13, 2018.

    Procedural History

    The IRS treated Ramey’s request as untimely and offered an equivalent hearing under section 301. 6330-1(i)(1) of the Treasury Regulations. After the equivalent hearing, IRS Appeals issued a decision letter sustaining the notice of intent to levy. Ramey petitioned the U. S. Tax Court for review. The Commissioner filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, which was later supplemented with additional evidence of service. An evidentiary hearing was held on July 31, 2020. The court granted the Commissioner’s motion, dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction due to the untimely request for a CDP hearing.

    Issue(s)

    Whether mailing a notice of intent to levy to a taxpayer’s last known address by certified mail, return receipt requested, starts the 30-day period for requesting a CDP hearing under I. R. C. sec. 6330, even if the taxpayer does not personally receive the notice because the address is shared by multiple businesses and the notice is left with someone unauthorized to receive the taxpayer’s mail.

    Rule(s) of Law

    I. R. C. sec. 6330(a)(2) requires that the notice of intent to levy be sent to the taxpayer’s last known address by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. Treasury Regulation section 301. 6330-1(a)(3), Q&A-A9, states that “Notification properly sent to the taxpayer’s last known address * * * is sufficient to start the 30-day period within which the taxpayer may request a CDP hearing. * * * Actual receipt is not a prerequisite to the validity of the CDP Notice. “

    Holding

    The U. S. Tax Court held that the mailing of the notice of intent to levy to Ramey’s last known address by certified mail, return receipt requested, started the 30-day period for requesting a CDP hearing under I. R. C. sec. 6330, despite Ramey not personally receiving the notice due to the shared address and unauthorized receipt by a third party. As a result, Ramey’s request for a CDP hearing was untimely, and the court lacked jurisdiction to review the case.

    Reasoning

    The court’s reasoning focused on the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiating the 30-day period for requesting a CDP hearing. The court emphasized that the statute and regulations do not require actual receipt of the notice, only that it be sent to the taxpayer’s last known address by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. The court rejected Ramey’s argument that the notice was deficient because he did not personally receive it, finding that the IRS complied with the statutory requirements by properly addressing and sending the notice. The court also noted that Ramey’s choice to share an address with multiple businesses did not change the IRS’s obligation under the statute. The court’s analysis included a review of prior case law and statutory interpretation, reinforcing the strict adherence to the 30-day deadline and the implications for judicial review.

    Disposition

    The U. S. Tax Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction due to Ramey’s untimely request for a CDP hearing.

    Significance/Impact

    This case underscores the strict statutory requirements for initiating the 30-day period for requesting a CDP hearing under I. R. C. sec. 6330. It clarifies that the IRS’s responsibility is fulfilled by sending the notice to the taxpayer’s last known address, regardless of actual receipt. This ruling may impact taxpayers who share addresses with other entities, emphasizing the importance of timely action upon notification of IRS actions. The decision also highlights the limited jurisdiction of the U. S. Tax Court in reviewing CDP cases, reinforcing the procedural nature of these hearings and the consequences of missing statutory deadlines. Subsequent cases may reference this decision to interpret the notice requirements under I. R. C. sec. 6330 and related regulations.

  • Eric Onyango v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 142 T.C. No. 24 (2014): Notice of Deficiency and Taxpayer’s Obligation to Retrieve Mail

    Eric Onyango v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 142 T. C. No. 24 (U. S. Tax Court 2014)

    In Eric Onyango v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the U. S. Tax Court ruled that a taxpayer cannot claim non-receipt of a notice of deficiency if they fail to retrieve their mail despite having reasonable opportunities to do so. The court emphasized that Onyango, who was aware of ongoing tax issues, did not regularly check his mailbox, leading to the non-delivery of the notice. This decision clarifies the taxpayer’s responsibility in ensuring receipt of important tax documents, impacting how taxpayers must engage with postal services to stay informed of their tax obligations.

    Parties

    Eric Onyango, Petitioner, pro se; Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent, represented by Lauren N. May and K. Elizabeth Kelly.

    Facts

    Eric Onyango, a resident of Chicago, Illinois, filed his tax return for the year 2006 and subsequently submitted amended returns. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) conducted an examination of Onyango’s 2006 and 2007 tax years, proposing adjustments. After unsuccessful attempts to contact Onyango, the IRS issued a notice of deficiency on August 6, 2010, which was mailed to Onyango’s legal residence. The U. S. Postal Service made several unsuccessful attempts to deliver the notice, leaving notices of attempted delivery at Onyango’s address. Onyango did not regularly check his mailbox and discovered the notices of attempted delivery only in late October or early November 2010. By the time he checked at the post office, the certified mail had been returned to the IRS as unclaimed.

    Procedural History

    The IRS issued a notice of deficiency for Onyango’s 2006 and 2007 tax years on August 6, 2010. Onyango did not timely file a petition in response to this notice. Subsequently, the IRS issued a notice of intent to levy and a notice of Federal tax lien filing, to which Onyango responded by requesting hearings. The Appeals Office sustained the proposed collection actions, leading to the filing of petitions by Onyango with the U. S. Tax Court, which conducted a partial trial to address whether Onyango could dispute his underlying tax liability for 2006 under I. R. C. sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).

    Issue(s)

    Whether a taxpayer who declines to retrieve certified mail containing a notice of deficiency, despite having reasonable opportunities to do so, can successfully contend that they did not receive the notice for purposes of I. R. C. sec. 6330(c)(2)(B)?

    Rule(s) of Law

    Under I. R. C. sec. 6330(c)(2)(B), a person may dispute the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability for any tax period if the person did not receive a notice of deficiency for that tax liability or did not otherwise have the opportunity to dispute that tax liability. The court emphasized that the taxpayer has a responsibility to retrieve mail when reasonably able to do so.

    Holding

    The U. S. Tax Court held that Onyango could not decline to retrieve his mail, despite having multiple opportunities to do so, and subsequently claim non-receipt of the notice of deficiency for purposes of I. R. C. sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). Consequently, Onyango was not entitled to dispute the underlying tax liability for his taxable year 2006.

    Reasoning

    The court’s reasoning focused on the taxpayer’s responsibility to engage with the postal system to receive important tax documents. The court found Onyango’s testimony about not knowing about the notices until late October or early November 2010 unreliable. Even accepting this testimony, the court emphasized that Onyango was aware of the ongoing tax examination and the potential issuance of a notice of deficiency. Despite this knowledge, Onyango did not regularly check his mailbox, which was a critical factor in the court’s decision. The court applied the legal principle that a taxpayer cannot willfully avoid receiving a notice of deficiency and then claim non-receipt under I. R. C. sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). The court rejected Onyango’s contention that he did not receive the notice, finding that his failure to retrieve the mail was not justified given his awareness of the tax issues and the multiple opportunities to retrieve the mail.

    Disposition

    The U. S. Tax Court entered decisions for the respondent, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, affirming that Onyango was not entitled to dispute his underlying tax liability for 2006 under I. R. C. sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).

    Significance/Impact

    This case has significant implications for taxpayers’ obligations regarding the receipt of tax notices. It establishes that taxpayers must take reasonable steps to ensure they receive and review their mail, especially when they are aware of ongoing tax issues. The decision underscores the importance of engaging with the postal system and clarifies that willful avoidance of mail retrieval can preclude a taxpayer from disputing a tax liability under I. R. C. sec. 6330(c)(2)(B). This ruling may influence future cases where taxpayers claim non-receipt of notices, emphasizing the duty of taxpayers to actively manage their postal communications related to tax matters.

  • Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729 (1989): The Importance of Proving a Valid Notice of Deficiency

    Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T. C. 729 (1989)

    A valid notice of deficiency must be proven to have been mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address to establish jurisdiction in the Tax Court.

    Summary

    The Pietanza case addresses the critical requirement for the IRS to prove the mailing of a valid notice of deficiency to establish jurisdiction in the Tax Court. The IRS claimed a notice was mailed but could not provide a copy, relying only on postal service Form 3877. The court held that Form 3877 alone, without corroborating evidence, was insufficient to prove mailing, especially when contradicted by the IRS’s confusing responses to the taxpayer’s inquiries. This ruling underscores the necessity for the IRS to maintain adequate records and follow proper procedures to ensure the enforceability of tax assessments.

    Facts

    Peter and Mary Pietanza sought a redetermination of their 1980 federal income tax, arguing no valid notice of deficiency was issued. The IRS claimed a notice was mailed on April 15, 1985, but lost the administrative file and could not provide a copy. They relied on postal service Form 3877 as evidence of mailing. The Pietanzas never received a notice and had repeatedly inquired about it, receiving no mention of its existence from the IRS until litigation began.

    Procedural History

    The Pietanzas filed a petition in the U. S. Tax Court for redetermination of their 1980 tax liability. Both parties moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction: the Pietanzas for no valid notice of deficiency, and the Commissioner for an untimely petition. The Tax Court granted the Pietanzas’ motion, finding no proof of a valid notice of deficiency.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the IRS’s inability to produce a copy of the notice of deficiency, coupled with only a postal service Form 3877, is sufficient to establish that a valid notice of deficiency was mailed to the Pietanzas for their 1980 tax year?

    Holding

    1. No, because the IRS failed to provide sufficient evidence beyond Form 3877 to prove the mailing of a valid notice of deficiency, and the presumption of official regularity was rebutted by the IRS’s inability to produce a copy of the notice and their confusing communications with the Pietanzas.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court analyzed the IRS’s burden to prove the existence and mailing of a notice of deficiency. They emphasized that Form 3877 alone was insufficient without corroborating evidence, especially when the IRS’s actions contradicted the presumption of official regularity. The court noted the IRS’s failure to produce a copy of the notice, their inability to follow up on the draft notice, and their confusing responses to the Pietanzas’ inquiries. The majority rejected the dissent’s view that Form 3877 should suffice, highlighting the need for more substantial evidence in such cases.

    Practical Implications

    This decision reinforces the importance of the IRS maintaining clear records and following established procedures for issuing notices of deficiency. Practitioners should be aware that the IRS must prove the mailing of a valid notice to establish Tax Court jurisdiction. Taxpayers have a right to challenge assessments if the IRS cannot substantiate the issuance of a notice. The ruling may encourage the IRS to enhance its documentation practices to prevent similar jurisdictional issues. Subsequent cases have cited Pietanza to emphasize the necessity of proving a valid notice of deficiency, impacting how tax disputes are litigated and resolved.

  • Walden v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 947 (1988): The Risk of Nondelivery of Tax Returns Mailed Without Registered or Certified Mail

    Walden v. Commissioner, 90 T. C. 947 (1988)

    A taxpayer bears the risk of nondelivery of a tax return mailed to the IRS without using registered or certified mail.

    Summary

    In Walden v. Commissioner, the taxpayers attempted to file their 1979 federal income tax return by mailing it to the IRS on June 13, 1980, using regular mail. The return was lost by the Postal Service and never received by the IRS. The key issue was whether the taxpayers had successfully filed their return for statute of limitations purposes. The Tax Court held that the taxpayers did not file their return until they submitted a signed copy in August 1981, as they bore the risk of nondelivery for not using registered or certified mail. This decision emphasizes the importance of using registered or certified mail for tax filings to ensure timely filing and avoid potential statute of limitations issues.

    Facts

    Paul and Marie Walden, residents of Wheatridge, Colorado, engaged their accountant, Kent Davis, to prepare their 1979 federal and state income tax returns. On June 13, 1980, the day before their extended filing deadline, Steven Miller, the controller of the Paul Walden Companies, mailed the completed returns using regular mail. The federal return showed an overpayment to be applied to the next year’s taxes. The IRS never received the return, and subsequent communications from the IRS in 1981 and 1982 indicated that the 1979 return was missing. The taxpayers provided an unsigned copy in June 1981 and a signed declaration in August 1981. The IRS issued a notice of deficiency on June 15, 1984, which the taxpayers contested as time-barred.

    Procedural History

    The taxpayers petitioned the U. S. Tax Court to contest the IRS’s notice of deficiency for their 1979 tax year. The court severed the procedural issue of the statute of limitations from the substantive issue of the taxpayers’ claimed deductions. The Tax Court then addressed the question of whether the taxpayers had filed their return in time to trigger the statute of limitations.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the taxpayers successfully filed their 1979 federal income tax return on June 13, 1980, for statute of limitations purposes, despite the return being lost in the mail.

    Holding

    1. No, because the taxpayers did not use registered or certified mail and thus bore the risk of nondelivery. The return was not considered filed until a signed copy was received by the IRS in August 1981.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Tax Court ruled that for statute of limitations purposes, a tax return is considered “filed” only when it is delivered to and received by the IRS. The court noted that while there is a presumption of delivery when a return is properly mailed, this presumption is rebuttable and was rebutted by the fact that the return was lost. The court emphasized that Section 7502(c) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that using registered or certified mail creates a presumption of delivery, which the taxpayers did not utilize. Therefore, the taxpayers assumed the risk of nondelivery. The court also cited Section 6061, which requires returns to be signed to be valid, noting that the unsigned copy sent in June 1981 did not constitute a filing. The court concluded that the notice of deficiency was timely issued based on the August 1981 filing date. The court’s strict construction of the statute of limitations in favor of the government was influenced by the Supreme Court’s guidance in DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Davis.

    Practical Implications

    Walden v. Commissioner underscores the importance of using registered or certified mail when filing tax returns to ensure they are considered timely filed, especially for statute of limitations purposes. Taxpayers and their advisors should always use these mailing methods to avoid the risk of nondelivery and potential tax assessment issues. This decision influences how attorneys advise clients on tax filing procedures, emphasizing the need for verifiable proof of delivery. It also affects IRS practices by reinforcing their position that they are not responsible for returns lost in transit unless sent by registered or certified mail. Subsequent cases have followed this ruling, reinforcing the necessity of using registered or certified mail for tax filings.

  • Neiman v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 101 (1986): Timely Mailing and Proof of Delivery Under Section 7502

    Neiman v. Commissioner, 87 T. C. 101 (1986)

    To establish timely filing under IRC Section 7502 using certified mail, taxpayers must provide a postmarked certified mail sender’s receipt and proof of proper addressing.

    Summary

    In Neiman v. Commissioner, the Tax Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction due to the untimely filing of a tax deficiency petition. The petitioners claimed they mailed the petition within the statutory 90-day period, but the court never received the original petition. They failed to provide a postmarked certified mail sender’s receipt, which is required under IRC Section 7502 and its regulations to establish prima facie evidence of timely delivery. The court emphasized the need for strict proof of compliance with mailing regulations when the document is not received, highlighting the importance of the sender’s receipt in such cases.

    Facts

    The IRS issued a notice of deficiency to the petitioners on May 25, 1984, for tax years 1978-1981. The petitioners claimed they mailed a petition to the Tax Court on July 26, 1984, within the 90-day period. However, the court received only a photocopy of the petition on August 22, 1985, 454 days after the notice. The original petition was never received. The petitioners provided affidavits and other indirect evidence to support their claim of timely mailing but did not produce a postmarked certified mail sender’s receipt.

    Procedural History

    The IRS moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on October 4, 1985, due to the untimely filing of the petition. The Tax Court assigned the case to a Special Trial Judge for a hearing, which occurred on December 18, 1985. The petitioners did not appear but filed a response and a Rule 50(c) statement. The Special Trial Judge issued an opinion recommending dismissal, which the full Tax Court adopted and issued as its final decision.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the petitioners timely filed their petition with the Tax Court under IRC Section 7502 by mailing it via certified mail.

    Holding

    1. No, because the petitioners failed to provide a postmarked certified mail sender’s receipt and proof that the envelope was properly addressed, as required by the regulations under IRC Section 7502.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court applied IRC Section 6213(a), which requires a petition to be filed within 90 days of the mailing of a deficiency notice, and IRC Section 7502, which provides a timely mailing/timely filing rule for documents sent by mail. The court emphasized that under the regulations (Section 301. 7502-1(d)(1)), to establish prima facie evidence of delivery when using certified mail, petitioners must provide a postmarked certified mail sender’s receipt and proof of proper addressing. The court rejected the petitioners’ indirect evidence (affidavits, business records) as insufficient without the sender’s receipt, citing the need for strict proof to prevent abuse of the mailing rule. The court distinguished this case from Wood v. Commissioner, where the petition was received, albeit late, and some secondary evidence was allowed. The court concluded that without the required proof, it lacked jurisdiction over the case.

    Practical Implications

    This decision underscores the importance of retaining and presenting a postmarked certified mail sender’s receipt when relying on IRC Section 7502 to establish timely filing. Taxpayers and practitioners must be diligent in documenting and preserving proof of mailing to avoid dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The case highlights that indirect evidence, such as affidavits and business records, is insufficient without the sender’s receipt when the document is not received. This ruling may lead to more cautious mailing practices and increased use of registered mail or electronic filing methods that provide clear proof of delivery. Subsequent cases, such as Miller v. United States, have applied similar reasoning in other contexts, reinforcing the strict proof requirement for timely filing claims.

  • Zenco Engineering Corporation v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 318 (1980): Proper Mailing of Notice of Deficiency to Last Known Address

    Zenco Engineering Corporation v. Commissioner, 75 T. C. 318 (1980)

    A notice of deficiency is considered properly mailed if it is sent to the taxpayer’s last known address, even if it is refused or mishandled by the postal service.

    Summary

    In Zenco Engineering Corporation v. Commissioner, the IRS sent a notice of deficiency by certified mail to Zenco’s last known address. The notice was returned unopened, marked “refused,” but Zenco claimed it was never received or refused by its employees. The Tax Court held that the notice was properly mailed to Zenco’s last known address, dismissing Zenco’s petition as untimely filed. This ruling underscores that the IRS’s obligation is satisfied by mailing the notice correctly, not ensuring its receipt, unless postal mishandling is proven.

    Facts

    Zenco Engineering Corporation, now known as Xenex Corp. , received a notice of deficiency from the IRS on June 26 or 27, 1979, for the taxable year ended January 31, 1975. The notice was sent by certified mail to Zenco’s address at 2940 North Halsted Street, Chicago, Illinois, which had been its address since 1962. Zenco’s mail was held for pickup at the Lincoln Park Branch of the Chicago Post Office. The notice was returned to the IRS on July 5, 1979, marked “refused” on July 3, 1979. Zenco’s president and employees testified that they did not refuse any certified mail during the relevant period and were unaware of any delivery attempts on Zenco’s premises.

    Procedural History

    The IRS moved to dismiss Zenco’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, claiming it was not filed within the statutory 90-day period after the notice of deficiency was mailed. Zenco countered with a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the notice of deficiency was not properly mailed and delivered. The Tax Court heard the case on these motions and ruled on the issue of proper mailing and jurisdiction.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the IRS’s notice of deficiency was properly mailed to Zenco’s last known address under Section 6212(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the notice was mailed to Zenco’s correct and last known address, and there was no evidence of postal mishandling beyond Zenco’s claim of non-receipt.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Tax Court relied on Section 6212(b)(1), which states that a notice of deficiency is sufficient if mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address. The court emphasized that the statute’s language does not require receipt by the taxpayer, only proper mailing. The court rejected Zenco’s argument of postal mishandling, citing a strong presumption that properly addressed mail is delivered or offered for delivery. The court noted that Zenco’s evidence of non-receipt and non-refusal by its employees was insufficient to overcome the presumption of proper mailing. The court distinguished this case from Estate of McKaig v. Commissioner, where postal mishandling was evident from the face of the notice. The court concluded that without clear evidence of postal mishandling, the notice was properly mailed, and Zenco’s petition was untimely filed.

    Practical Implications

    This decision reinforces the principle that the IRS’s duty is fulfilled by mailing a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer’s last known address, regardless of whether it is received. Taxpayers must ensure their address is current with the IRS to avoid issues with notices of deficiency. This ruling may affect how taxpayers handle certified mail and underscores the importance of diligent mail pickup practices. It also implies that taxpayers challenging the timeliness of petitions based on non-receipt face a high burden to prove postal mishandling. Subsequent cases have continued to uphold this interpretation, emphasizing the statutory focus on mailing rather than receipt.

  • Traxler v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 534 (1975): Determining the Date of Mailing for Tax Deficiency Notices

    Traxler v. Commissioner, 63 T. C. 534 (1975)

    The date of mailing of a tax deficiency notice for purposes of section 6213(a) is determined by the postmark on the postal receipt for certified mail (Form 3877) when the envelope lacks a proper postmark.

    Summary

    In Traxler v. Commissioner, the U. S. Tax Court addressed the issue of determining the mailing date of a deficiency notice for tax purposes. The case focused on whether a line date stamp on an envelope constituted a postmark. The Court ruled that such stamps are not postmarks, and thus the mailing date should be based on the postmark on the certified mail receipt, Form 3877. This decision impacted the timeliness of the petitioners’ response, leading to the dismissal of their case for lack of jurisdiction due to late filing.

    Facts

    The Internal Revenue Service mailed a statutory notice of deficiency to Duane M. and Marion C. Traxler via certified mail. The envelope was stamped with two line date stamps of “March 31, 1973” by the Clearwater, Florida Post Office. The IRS’s certified mail receipt (Form 3877) was postmarked March 29, 1973. The Traxlers filed their petition on June 28, 1973, which they believed was within the 90-day period from the line date stamp on the envelope.

    Procedural History

    The case initially came before the U. S. Tax Court when the IRS moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the petition was filed late. The Court initially denied the motion, assuming the line date stamps on the envelope were postmarks. Upon reconsideration and additional evidence regarding the nature of the stamps, the Court revisited the decision.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a line date stamp on an envelope constitutes a postmark for determining the mailing date of a deficiency notice under section 6213(a)?
    2. If not, what date determines the mailing of the deficiency notice for the purpose of the 90-day filing period?

    Holding

    1. No, because a line date stamp is for internal postal control and does not meet the criteria for a postmark.
    2. No, because the date of mailing is determined by the postmark on the certified mail receipt (Form 3877), which in this case was March 29, 1973, making the petition untimely when filed on June 28, 1973.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court distinguished between a postmark and a line date stamp, stating that a postmark must include the name of the Post Office or the U. S. Postal Service along with the date, as per postal regulations. The line date stamps on the envelope were deemed insufficient for determining the mailing date. The Court cited the Postal Manual to support its interpretation of what constitutes a postmark. The Court also noted the unfortunate reliance by the petitioners on the line date stamps but held that the correct date of mailing was that on the certified mail receipt, resulting in the petition being filed on the 91st day after mailing, thus outside the statutory period.

    Practical Implications

    This decision clarifies that for tax deficiency notices, the date of mailing is determined by the postmark on the certified mail receipt when the envelope lacks a proper postmark. Practitioners and taxpayers must verify the certified mail receipt’s postmark to ensure timely filing of petitions. This ruling impacts how similar cases should be approached, emphasizing the importance of the certified mail receipt in disputes over the timeliness of tax court petitions. It also underscores the need for clear communication from the IRS about what constitutes a valid postmark for legal purposes.