Madison v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 68414.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1957 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 68414. |
| Citation | 28 T.C. 1301 |
| Parties | LUTHER A. MADISON AND ESTHER R. MADISON, HUSBAND AND WIFE, Petitioners,v.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
JURISDICTION—FILING DATE OF PETITION—POSTMARK DATE—SEC. 7502 .—Section 7502, I. R. C. 1954, does not provide that the mailing date is the date of filing of a petition, if no date is postmarked on the envelope or ‘cover’ in which the petition to this Court is mailed by ordinary mail. Walter K. Leong, Esq., for the petitioners.
Robert C. Whitley, Esq., for the respondent.
The Commissioner filed a motion on August 13, 1957, to dismiss the petition in this case for lack of jurisdiction because the petition was not filed within 90 days after the mailing of the notice of deficiency, as provided by section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The motion was set for hearing and called for that purpose on September 18, 1957, at which time a memorandum in opposition to the motion was filed in lieu of appearance for the petitioners.
The notice of deficiency was mailed to the petitioners by registered mail on March 11, 1957. The 90-day period expired on June 10, 1957. The petition was received and filed by the Tax Court on June 24, 1957. That was 14 days after the 90-day period had expired.
Section 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 provides that if a petition is received by the Tax Court after the expiration of the 90-day period, ‘the date of the United States postmark stamped on the cover in which * * * [the petition] is mailed shall be deemed to be the date of delivery’ if the postmark date is within the statutory 90-day period. That section cannot be and was not intended to be satisfied unless a postmark date has been stamped on the ‘cover.'1 No postmark date was ever stamped upon the ‘cover’ in which the present petition was mailed to the Tax Court. Thus, the late filing is not saved by a postmark date on the cover.
Counsel for the petitioners, in his memorandum in opposition to the granting of the Commissioner's motion, seems to have the erroneous idea that a petition is timely filed if it was placed in a United States mailbox before the expiration of the 90 days, and he has attached to that memorandum sworn statements that he envelope containing the petition in this case (as well as envelopes containing the petitions of two others) was placed in a United States mailbox in front of the United States Post Office, Wilshire-LaBrea Station, at 225 South LaBrea, Los Angeles, California, at approximately 10:15 p. m. on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Wood v. C.I.R.
...section 7502 "cannot be and was not intended to be satisfied unless a postmark date has been stamped on the 'cover.' " Madison v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1301, 1302 (1957). The emphasis on postmark is made even more clear by the cases which hold that the date of an actual postmark is controll......
-
Pekar v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...effectively cause the filing date of a document to be the postmark date. See Cespedes v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 214 (1959); Madison v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1301 (1957); Electronic Automation Sys., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.1976–270; sec. 301.7502–1(c)(ii), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Accor......
-
Ruegsegger v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket No. 3057—76.
...66 T.C. 737, 741 (1976); Estate of Moffat v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. 499 (1966); Molosh v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 320 (1965); Madison v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1301 (1957).3 At the hearing on this motion a law clerk for petitioners' attorneys testified that he deposited the envelope containing ......
-
Menard, Inc. v. Commissioner, Docket No. 16919-80.
...of Moffat v. Commissioner Dec. 28,033, 46 T.C. 499 (1966); Molosh v. Commissioner Dec. 27,800, 45 T.C. 320 (1965); Madison v. Commissioner Dec. 22,596, 28 T.C. 1301 (1957). Fn. ref. Suffice it to say that we see no reason to depart now from our previous decisions as to this matter. Also cf.......