Opinion ID: 1743602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Substantial Evidence to Support Agency's Finding.

Text: Having determined the agency used the correct legal standard in deciding the taxpayers' protest, we now consider whether there is substantial evidence to support the department's factual finding that the taxpayers failed to prove their claim for credit was  filed with the department within three years after the return upon which [the] credit claimed became due. Iowa Code § 422.73(2) (emphasis added). Having reviewed and considered the entire record, we conclude the department's finding is clearly supported by substantial evidence. We begin with the statutory rule that deems a document filed upon proof of mailing  section 622.105. The only evidence that the Langes' 1996 state income tax return was deposited in the United States mail on or before its due date was the testimony of McGowen, the sender, that under normal office practice, the return, having been signed on September 18, 1997, would have been deposited in the United States mail on that date or the following day. Although there is credible evidence in addition to McGowen's testimony that a document was readied for mailing in September 1997 on the Langes' behalf (the office record showing the Langes were billed $1.70 for postage in September 1997), there is no record indicating the document was deposited in the United States mail. [3] That final and necessary step is shown only through the sender's testimony. Therefore, we think the director properly concluded the taxpayers were not entitled to rely on section 622.105 to establish they had filed their 1996 income tax return on time. It is undisputed the department did not receive the Langes' 1996 tax return until a duplicate return was provided in 2001. This fact constitutes substantial evidence to support the agency's finding that the taxpayers did not file their claim for a credit until more than three years after the due date of the tax return upon which the claim was based, as required by section 422.73(2). Accordingly, the department properly denied their claim as untimely.