TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Diane L. Mathews Hull & Alan R. Hull
Docket Number: 434-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/14/2008
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 DIANE L . MATHEWS HULL & ALAN R . HULL, Petitioners, ) Docket No . 434-08 S V . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at Detroit, Michigan on June 23, 2008, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order will be issued . (Signed) Diane L . Kroupa Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . July 14, 2008 f2 1 K'D n14 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa June 23, 200 8 2 Hull v . Commissioner Docket No . 434-08 S 3 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 4 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the 5 following represents the Court's oral findings of fact 6 and opinion . These oral findings of fact and opinion 7 shall not be relied upon as precedent in any othe r 8 case . 9 This proceeding was conducted as a Small Tax 10 Case pursuant to section 7463 of the Internal Revenue 11 Code and Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules 12 of Practice and Procedure . All section references are 13 to the Internal Revenue Code for the years at issu e 14 and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of 15 Practice and Procedure . This bench opinion is made 16 pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) 17 and Rule 152 . 18 This deficiency case is before the Court on 19 respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack o f 20 21 Jurisdiction filed February 29, 2008 . Petitioner s filed an objection on March 27, 2008, and the Court 22 set respondent's motion to dismiss for hearing on the 23 Court's June 23, 2008 trial session in Detroit , 24 Michigan . 25 Diane Mathews Hull appeared on behalf of Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 petitioners . Bryan Sladek appeared on behalf of 2 respondent . 3 The issue for decision is whether 4 petitioners timely filed a petition . We hold that 5 they did and therefore we shall deny respondent's 6 motion to dismiss . 7 FINDINGS OF FAC T 8 The record reflects or the parties do not 9 dispute the following : 10 Petitioners resided in a rural area o f 11 Michigan at the time they filed the petition in this 12 case . 13 Respondent issued a statutory notice of 14 deficiency to petitioners on September 28, 2007 , 15 determining a deficiency and accuracy - related penalty 16 for 2003 and 2004 . On December 27, 2007, the 90th day 17 after the deficiency notice was issued, petitione r 18 Diane L . Mathews Hull went to the local post office to 19 mail the petition . Due to the Christmas holida y 20 season , however, the counter had closed early and 21 petitioner was unable to buy a stamp or send the 22 envelope Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested . 23 Another postal service customer came and petitioner 24 was able to obtain a stamp . She placed the stamp on 25 the envelope and dropped it in the mailbox . Whe n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 petitioner arrived home, she noticed that she ha d 2 forgotten to include in the envelope check number 3459 3 to cover the filing fee . The next day, petitione r 4 went to the post office and sent the check and a copy 5 of the previously mailed petition by Certified Mail , 6 Return Receipt Requested, explaining that she had sent 7 the original petition on the previous day . 8 The envelope containing the origina l 9 petition lacked sufficient postage so did not arrive 10 at the Tax Court until January 7, 2008, which date is 11 101 days after the mailing of the notice o f 12 deficiency . The postmark on the envelope shows 13 December but is otherwise illegible . The Unite d 14 States Postal Service has advised respondent that an 15 envelope, properly addressed to the Tax Court an d 16 bearing sufficient postage, mailed from the Lansing, 17 Michigan area on December 27, 2007, would hav e 18 ordinarily been received on January 2, 2008 . 19 Respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss for 20 Lack of Jurisdiction contending that the petition was 21 not mailed to the Court within the 90-day period for 22 timely filing a petition with this Court unde r 23 sections 6213(a) and 7502(a) . The record reflects 24 that the 90-day period for filing a timely petition 25 with the Court expired on December 27, 2007 . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 OPINION 2 We now address whether petitioners timely 3 filed the petition having timely mailed the petition . 4 It is well established that this Court's jurisdiction 5 to redetermine a deficiency depends upon the issuance 6 of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely file d 7 petition . Rule 13 ( a), (c) ; Pugsley v . Commissioner , 8 749 F .2d 691 , 692 (11th Cir . 1985 ) ; Levitt v . 9 10 11 Commissioner , 97 T .C . 437, 441 (1991 ) ; Monge v . Commissioner , 93 T .C . 22, 27 (1989) ; Normac, Inc . v . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 142, 147 ( 1988) . Once th e 12 Commissioner mails a valid notice to the taxpayer's 13 last known address, section 6213 ( a) provides i n 14 pertinent part that the taxpayer must file a petition 15 with this Court within 90 days ( or 150 days if th e 16 deficiency notice is mailed to the taxpayer outside of 17 the United States) . 18 In certain limited circumstances , section 19 7502 provides that a timely mailed petition will be 20 treated as though it were timely filed . Where th e 21 postmark in question is privately stamped, we look to 22 the provisions implementing the "timely mailing/timely 23 filing " rule contained in section 301 .7502- 24 1(c )( 1)(iii)(b), Proced . & Admin . Regs . Thi s 25 regulation generally provides that a document bearing Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 a timely private postage meter postmark will satisfy 2 the timely mailing/timely filing rule so long as the 3 document is received within the normal mailing tim e 4 for an item that is properly addressed and postmarked 5 at the same point of origin by the United States Post 6 Office . 7 The validity of this regulation has bee n 8 upheld . Lindemood v . Commissioner , 566 F .2d 646, 649 9 (9th Cir . 1977), affg . T .C . Memo . 1975-195 ; Fishman V . 10 Commissioner , 420 F .2d 491, 492 (2d Cir . 1970), affg . 11 51 T .C . 869 . The deficiency notice here was mailed to 12 petitioners on September 28, 2007 . Consequently, the 13 90-day period for filing a timely petition with this 14 Court expired on December 27, 2007 . If the envelope 15 in which the petition was mailed to the Court bears a 16 private stamp and a postmark date of the 90th da y 17 after the mailing of the deficiency notice, th e 18 envelope would have been received on January 2, 2008, 19 yet the envelope was not received by the Court until 20 January 7, 2008, which date is 101 days after the date 21 the deficiency notice was mailed . 22 The record reflects that the petition was 23 not received by the Court within the normal mailing 24 time for the First Class Mail between Lansing , 25 Michigan, and Washington, D .C . Consequently, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 petitioners must establish under section 301 .7502- 2 1(c)(1)(iii)(b), Proced . & Admin . Regs ., that : (1) the 3 envelope bearing the petition was actually deposite d 4 in the mail in a timely fashion, (2) the delay in 5 receiving the envelope was due to a delay in th e 6 transmission of the mail, and (3) the cause of such 7 delay . 8 Petitioner here credibly testified that she 9 mailed the petition on December 27, 2007 . Petitioner 10 presented evidence that the mailbox was located in a 11 rural area and that the Postal Service window or 12 counter had closed early because of the Christma s 13 holiday . We find that she dropped the envelope in the 14 mailbox before the last collection for that mailbox, 15 and that the envelope was not delivered in the normal 16 course because it lacked sufficient postage . If the 17 counter or window had been staffed, petitioner would 18 have been able to purchase the correct amount of 19 postage . We find that petitioners have met the 20 requirements of the regulation . See Fishman v . 21 Commissioner , supra ; Jones v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 22 1998-197 (the taxpayer met requirements of non-U .S .- 23 postmark regulation when evidence established, i n 24 part, that taxpayer deposited the envelope in the mail 25 before the last collection) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 It follows that the petition was timel y 2 filed . An appropriate order will be issued denying 3 respondent's motion to dismiss for lack o f 4 jurisdiction and scheduling this case for trial in due 5 course . 6 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 7 fact and opinion in this case . 8 (Whereupon, at 2 :32 p .m ., the bench opinion 9 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 10 11 12 // 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888