Electronic Automation Systems, Inc. v. Commissioner

1976 T.C. Memo. 270, 35 T.C.M. 1183, 1976 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 131
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedAugust 24, 1976
DocketDocket No. 9024-75
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1976 T.C. Memo. 270 (Electronic Automation Systems, Inc. v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Electronic Automation Systems, Inc. v. Commissioner, 1976 T.C. Memo. 270, 35 T.C.M. 1183, 1976 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 131 (tax 1976).

Opinion

ELECTRONIC AUTOMATION SYSTEMS, INC., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Electronic Automation Systems, Inc. v. Commissioner
Docket No. 9024-75
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1976-270; 1976 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 131; 35 T.C.M. (CCH) 1183; T.C.M. (RIA) 760270;
August 24, 1976, Filed
Robert E. Lowe, (officer), *132 for the petitioner.
Joan B. Alexander,Joseph T. Chalhoub and George W Connelly, Jr., for the respondent.

WILBUR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILBUR, Judge: This matter is before us upon respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for the taxable year ended December 31, 1968 in the amount of $59,839.60. Respondent mailed a statutory notice of deficiency to petitioner at 2957 Alt Boulevard, Grand Island, New York, 14072, by certified mail on June 30, 1975. A carbon copy of the deficiency notice was mailed to Mr. Robert Lowe, the receiver in bankruptcy of petitioner. The petition was received by this Court on October 1, 1975.

Respondent contends that the period for filing a petition with this Court under section 6213(a) 1 expired on September 29, 1975, 2 i.e., 90 days after the mailing of the notice of deficiency. 3 Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that it is entitled to the 150 day period provided for filing a petition under section 6213(a). Alternatively, petitioner contends that the petition was timely mailed and that section 7502 4 operates to make the timely*133 mailing, a timely filing.

*134 Generally, a petition must be filed within 90 days after the notice of deficiency is mailed. Section 6213, however, extends that period to 150 days if the "notice is addressed to a person outside the States of the Union and the District of Columbia." A corporation is a person within the scope of section 6213. Degill Corp.,62 T.C. 292 (1974). Thus, petitioner corporation was the "person" to whom the notice was addressed.

The longer period provided by section 6213 is activated when the person to whom the notice is addressed is outside the States when the notice of deficiency is mailed. The fact that the deficiency notice is mailed to an address within the United States is not determinative. Rather, the key factor is physical absence from the States when the notice is mailed. Moreover, the absence need not be permanent. Mindell v. Commissioner,200 F. 2d 38 (2nd Cir., 1952), Estate of William Krueger,33 T.C. 667 (1960).

While the deficiency notice in the instant case was mailed to an address within the United States, 5 we must nevertheless determine whether petitioner was outside the States at the date of mailing of the notice.*135 The critical inquiry is whether the taxpayer corporation was physically located outside the States when the deficiency notice was mailed. Degill Corp.,supra.

Petitioner has the burden of proving the jurisdictional facts. 6 The record provides no evidence that corporate activities, assets or situs were located outside the United States, or that the responsible personnel were located in Canada at the time the deficiency notice was mailed rather than at petitioner's legal address. On the contrary, the petition admits that the corporation's legal residence was in New York. Since both the legal residence of the corporation and its last known address were admittedly within the United States and no other evidence was presented to lead us to a different conclusion, we*136 have no alternative but to hold that the corporation was present within the United States. The 90-day period for filing a petition is, therefore, applicable.

Since the 90-day period is applicable, we must consider petitioner's alternative contention that the mailing will constitute timely filing within section 7502. Section 7502 provides that a petition properly addressed with postage prepaid received after the date for filing is deemed filed on the date of the United States postmark stamped on the cover. There must be a United States postmark and the date of the postmark must be within the period prescribed for filing to qualify the mailing as a timely filing.*137 Section 7502; Luis Cespedes,33 T.C. 214 (1959); Proced. & Admin. regs. sec. 301. 7502-1.

The petition herein was received on October 1, 1975. While it was mailed and bears a Canadian postmark of September 29, 1975, there is no timely United States postmark as clearly required by statute. 7 Consequently, section 7502 is inapplicable and the postmark date will not be deemed the filing date.

The petition received on October 1, 1975, was not timely. Failure to file the petition within the prescribed period deprives this Court of jurisdiction. Angelo Vitale,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mindell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
200 F.2d 38 (Second Circuit, 1952)
Cespedes v. Commissioner
33 T.C. 214 (U.S. Tax Court, 1959)
Estate of Krueger v. Commissioner
33 T.C. 667 (U.S. Tax Court, 1960)
Moffat v. Commissioner
46 T.C. 499 (U.S. Tax Court, 1966)
Vitale v. Commissioner
59 T.C. 246 (U.S. Tax Court, 1972)
Degill Corp. v. Commissioner
62 T.C. No. 35 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1976 T.C. Memo. 270, 35 T.C.M. 1183, 1976 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/electronic-automation-systems-inc-v-commissioner-tax-1976.