Estate of Levinsky v. Commissioner
This text of 1982 T.C. Memo. 544 (Estate of Levinsky 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NIMS,
On April 1, 1981, respondent mailed to petitioner by certified mail a statutory notice of deficiency determining a deficiency in petitioner's estate tax of $227,895.58.
On June 30, 1981, the 90th day after the notice of deficiency*206 was mailed (and not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday in the District of Columbia), petitioner delivered an envelope containing the petition in this case to an office of the Federal Express Corporation. On July 1, 1981, the envelope was delivered to the Tax Court and the petition was filed.
Respondent contends that we lack jurisdiction of this matter because petitioner did not file the petition in this case within 90 days of the mailing of the notice of deficiency, as required by section 6213(a). 1
Petitioner, on the other hand, claims that we do have jurisdiction to hear his case because, he argues, the placing of a petition into the hands of the Federal Express Corporation, a "federally sanctioned" common carrier, on the 90th day falls within the provisions of section 7502 which, in certain circumstances, treats timely mailing as timely filing.
Section 7502 provides, in relevant part:
SEC. 7502. TIMELY MAILING TREATED AS TIMELY FILING AND PAYING.
(a) GENERAL RULE. --
(1) DATE OF DELIVERY. -- If any return, claim, statement, *207 or other document required to be filed, or any payment required to be made, within a prescribed period or on or before a prescribed date under authority of any provision of the internal revenue laws is, after such period or such date, delivered by United States mail to the agency, officer, or office with which such return, claim, statement, or other document is required to be filed, or to which such payment is required to be made, the date of the United States postmark stamped on the cover in which such return, claim, statement, or other document, or payment, is mailed shall be deemed to be the date of delivery or the date of payment, as the case may be.
(b) POSTMARKS.--This section shall apply in the case of postmarks not made by the United States Postal Service only if and to the extent provided by regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
Petitioner first contends that the use of a reliable private delivery service should be deemed to be the use of the United States mail for purposes of section 7502, particularly in light of the fact that since the first enactment of section 7502 the United States Postal Service has become more like a private corporation by virtue of the Postal*208 Reorganization Act.
In
Unfortunately, we additionally find no merit in petitioner's argument that because of the Postal Reorganization Act, there really no longer is a "United States mail" and thus the Federal Express Corporation stands on the same footing as the United States Postal Service. In section 1906(a)(49) - part of the "deadwood" provisions - of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, P.L. 94-455, 90 Stat. 1831, Congress changed the reference in section 7502(b) from "United States Post Office" to "United States Postal Service." This change was made specifically to reflect the Postal Reorganization Act. See H. Rept. No. 94-658 (1975), 1976-3 (Vol. 2) C.B. 1110; S. Rept. No. 94-938 (1976), 1976-3 (Vol. 3) C.B. 579. We think this*209 modification evidences Congress' intent that references to "United States mail" contained in the remainder of section 7502 were meant to refer henceforth only to the United States Postal Service and not merely to any reliable national mail delivery service.
Petitioner's other argument is that the Federal Express Corporation's handwritten notation of the date of receipt of his envelope should be deemed to satisfy the regulations promulgated under section 7502(b) for "postmarks not made by the United States Postal Service," particularly section 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(
*210 Since petitioner cannot take advantage of the timely mailing - timely filing rules of section 7502, his petition in this Court was not timely inder section 6213(a). Accordingly, respondent's motion must be granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1982 T.C. Memo. 544, 44 T.C.M. 1176, 1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-levinsky-v-commissioner-tax-1982.