TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Patrick J. Merrigan & Majella Dooley
Docket Number: 6144-09S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/04/2010
Pages: 4

_,r UNITED STATES TAX COUR T WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 PATRICK J . MERRIGAN & MAJELLA DOOLEY, Petitioners , v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . Docket No . 6144-09S ORDE 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 this case before Judge Haines at San Francisco, California on November 30, 2009, containing his oral findings of fact and. opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for petitioners . (Signed ) Harry A. Haines Judge i (Dated : Washington, D .C . January 4, 2010 SERVED JAN 0 5 2010 Bench Opinion by Judge Harry A . Haines December 4, 2009 Patrick J . Merrigan & Majella Dooley Docket No . 6144-09 S 3 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render ora l 5 findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the followin g 6 represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case . This case is before the Court on Respondent' s 10 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground 11 that Petitioners' petition was not filed within the tim e 12 prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502 of the 13 Internal Revenue Code . 14 Petitioners are individuals who maintained their 15 legal residence in the state of California at the time thei r 16~ petition was filed in this case . Respondent issued a 17 statutory notice of deficiency to Petitioners on Decembe r 18 1st, 2008 . Petitioners completed and signed a petition on 19 ; January 13th, 2009, and left it with their accountant, Carl 20 ; T . Childs, to be mailed . The petition arrived at the Tax 21 Court in Washington, DC, on March 12th, 2009, and was filed 22 more than 90 days after the issuance of the notice o f 23 ; deficiency . The US postmark stamp on the envelope used to 24 mail the Petitioners' petition was not legible . 25, To maintain an action in this Court, a taxpayer Heritage Reporting Corporation (202)628-4888 4 must file a timely petition under section 6213 . Failure to timely file prevents this Court from acquiring jurisdiction . See Estate of Cerrito v . Commissioner , 73 Tax Court 896, 878 (1980) ; and Stone v . Commissioner , 73 Tax Court 617, 61 8 (1980) . A petition is timely under section 6213 if it is filed with the Court within 90 days after the notice of 8, deficiency is mailed . If a petition is filed after the expiration of the 90-day period, it is nevertheless deeme d 10' to be timely filed if the date of the US postmark stamped on 11 the envelope in which the petition was mailed is within the 12 time prescribed for filing, and if the envelope containing 13 the petition is properly addressed and bears the prope r 14 : postage . See section 7502 . 15 If the US postmark stamp on the envelope is no t 16' legible, the taxpayer has the burden of proving the date 171 that the postmark was made, under Treasury regulation 18, section 301 .7502-1(c)(1)(iii) . 19~ To be timely under section 7502, Petitioners must 20 have mailed their petition to the Tax Court on or before 21, March 2, 2009 . At trial, Petitioners' witness, Carl T . 22 Childs, credibly testified that he mailed Petitioners' 23 petition to the Tax Court from the US post office i n 241 Vallejo, California, on February 24th, 2009 . Respondent 25 failed to submit any evidence to contradict Mr . Childs's Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 testimony . The envelope containing the Petitioners' petition is properly addressed and bears adequate postage . 4 Accordingly , we find that Petitioners' petition is deemed to 5 be timely under section 7502 and Respondent's motion t o 6 dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied . 7 In reaching our holding , we have considered al l 8 arguments made and to the extent not mentioned , we conclude 9 that they are moot, irrelevant , or without merit . 10', To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered 11 for Petitioners . 12' This concludes the Court ' s oral findings of fact 13 and opinion . 14 (Whereupon , at 9 :02 a . m ., the bench opinion in the above - entitled matter was concluded . ) 15i 16 171 18i 19 201 21 22' 23 24 / / 25 ; Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888