TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Christina J. & Michael J. Rau
Docket Number: 16656-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/19/2009
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 CHRISTINA J . AND MICHAEL J . RAU, Petitioners, . v, ) Docket No . 16656-08S 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 Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo at Atlanta, Georgia , on February 25, 2009, containing his 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 entered granting respondent's motion, as supplemented and dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction . (Signed ) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . March 19, 2009 SERVED Mar 20 2009 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo 2 February 25, 200 9 3 Rau v . Commissioner Docket Number 16656-08S 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, an d 6 the following represents the Court's oral findings of 7 fact and opinion . The oral findings of fact an d 8 opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 9 other case . 10 This proceeding for the redetermination of a 11 deficiency is a Small Tax Case conducted pursuant to 12 the provisions of Section 7463 of the Internal Revenue 13 Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of 14 the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 15 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 16 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Internal 17 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 18 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . Unles s 19 otherwise indicated, subsequent section reference s 20 made in this bench opinion are to the Internal . Revenue 21 Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant 22 period . 23 Michael J . Rau appeared pro se . Shannon E . 24 Loechel appeared on behalf of Respondent . 25 This case is before the Court on Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 Respondent ' s Motion to Dismiss for Lack o f 2 Jurisdiction filed September 2, 2008, and supplemented 3 on December 16, 2008 . Respondent's motion is base d 4 upon the ground that the petition in this case was not 5 filed within the period prescribed by Section 6213(a) . 6 Petitioner's objection to Respondent's motion wa s 7 filed September 24, 2008 . A hearing was conducted on 8 Respondent ' s motion in Washington, D .C . on January 7, 9 2009 . Pursuant to an Order dated that same day, a 10 further hearing was conducted on Respondent's motion 11 of February 23, 2009, in Atlanta, Georgia . During the 12 further hearing the testimony of Lindsay Allison was 13 taken . 14 For the most part, the underlying fact s 15 relevant to the disposition of Respondent ' s motion are 16 not in dispute and are easily summarized . In a notice 17 of deficiency dated and sent by certified mail t o 18 Petitioners on April 2 , 2008, Respondent determined a 19 $3,207 deficiency in their 2005 Federal income tax . 20 The petition, which was sent to the Court by regular 21 mail, was received and filed on July 7, 2008, which 22 date is 96 days after the date that the above- 23 referenced notice of deficiency was mailed and not 24 within the applicable period prescribed by Section 25 6213(a) . Although not expressly relied upon, from Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 their objection, we are satisfied that Petitioners 2 take the position that the petition in this cas e 3 should be treated as timely filed pursuant to Section 4 7502 . Briefly stated, that section establishes what 5 is commonly referred to as the "timely mailed i s 6 timely filed" rule applicable to various documents , 7 including petitions filed with this Court . 8 relevant here, Section 7502 is applicable only if , 9 among other requirements that need not be discussed, 10 the envelope in which the petition was mailed bears a 11 U .S . Postal Service postmark showing a date within the 12 period prescribed by Section 6213(a) . The envelope in 13 which the petition in this case was sent to the Court 14 is postmarked, but the postmark is illegible . Th e 15 date that the petition was mailed cannot be determined . 16 by examining the postmark . 17 Under such circumstances, a taxpayer relying 18 upon the provisions of Section 7502 "has the burden of 19 proving the date that the postmark was made ." Section 20 301 .7502-1(c)(1)(iii), Administrative and Procedural 21 Regs . 22 Petitioner's proof on the point consists of 23 the testimony of Lindsay Allison who testified o n 24 their behalf at the further hearing . Ms . Allison is 25 and was, at the relevant time, employed by Drakeford Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 and Drakeford , an accounting firm located in Virginia 2 that performed some services for Petitioners i n 3 connect with the petition filed in this case . She is 4 the person who mailed the petition . She testifie d 5 credibly that she placed the envelope in which the 6, petition was contained in the mailbox outside the 7 accounting firm's offices on April 1, 2008 . 8 Respondent agrees that if the petition was mailed and 9 postmarked on that date , the petition is considered to 10 have been timely filed and the Court has jurisdictio n 11 in this case . 12 We accept Ms . Allison's testimony that she 13 placed the petition in a mailbox on April 1 , 2008, but 14 that testimony , without more , does not conclusivel y 15 establish the date that the postmark was placed on the 16 envelope . See, e .g ., Estate of Wood v . Commissioner, 17 92 T .C . 793 , 798 (1989 ), aff'd 909 F . 2d 1155 (8th Cir . 18 1990 ) ; ( although the document was lost in the mail , 19 witness ' testimony established not only the date the 20 document was mailed , but the date shown on the U .S . 21 postmark place on the container in which the document 22 was mailed ) . Absent any direct evidence regarding the 23 date that the postmark was made, we could rely upon a 24 presumption of regularity that suggests a documen t 25 placed in a mailbox on a given day is postmarked on Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 that same day . But we~re we are missing the necessary 2 pieces of information that would allow for tha t 3 presumption to arise, namely, the connection between 4 the time that the document was mailed and the lates t 5 time of the day that items mailed from that particular 6 mailbox would have been picked up for processing . 7 For purposes of Section 7502, the burden on 8 the sender contemplated by the above-cited regulation 9 goes to the date that the postmark was made, no t 10 merely the date that a document was placed in the 11 mail . As noted in that regulation, "the sender who 12 relies upon the applicability of Section 7502 assumes 13 the risk that the postmark will bear a date on o r 14 before the last date, or the last day of the period, 15 prescribed for filing the document ." The regulation 16 goes on to note that the "risk" can be avoided through 17 the use of certified or registered mail, which methods 18 were not used in this case . 19 Because the date of the postmark shown on 20 the envelope in which the petition was mailed cannot 21 be determined by examining that postmark, and because 22 the evidence presented by Petitioners does no t 23 establish the date that the postmark was made, the 24 provisions of Section 7502 are not applicable . It 25 follows that the petition in this case, filed July 7 , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 22 7 2008, was not filed within the period prescribed by Section 6213(a), and Respondent's motion, a s supplemented, is well-made . To reflect the foregoing, an appropriat e order granting Respondent's motion as supplemente d will be issued . This concludes the Court's oral findings o f fact and opinion in this case . (Whereupon, at 11 :10 a .m, the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888