Tax Court Petition Was Timely Filed Based on Stamps.com Label

U.S. Tax Court

The Tax Court held that the date on a Stamps.com postage label was a “postmark not made by the United States Postal Service” within the meaning of <a href="/research/federal/usc26/7502#cpzt-0000009" resolve="/lr/resolve/7502b/cpzt#cpzt-0000009" title="7502(b)">section 7502(b)</a> and as such, a couple’s Tax Court petition was timely filed lending the court jurisdiction over their deficiency case. The IRS issued Lincoln and Victoria Pearson a notice of deficiency. The last day to file a petition with the Tax Court seeking a redetermination was April 22, 2015. The Pearsons’ petition was received and filed by the Tax Court on April 29, 2015. While the envelope containing the petition didn’t bear a USPS postmark, it contained a Stamps.com postage label dated April 21, 2015. The first entry in the USPS certified mail tracking system for the envelope was April 23, 2015. However, the administrative assistant from the law firm representing the Pearsons testified that she mailed the petition on April 21 and a USPS specialist indicated that the envelope was likely collected on April 22, 2015. The IRS agreed that the petition was timely mailed and therefore timely filed. The Tax Court, in an opinion by Judge Albert G. Lauber, explained that the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and its jurisdiction in a tax deficiency case depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and timely filed petition. Lauber further explained that under <a href="/research/federal/usc26/7502" resolve="/lr/resolve/7502/cpzt" title="7502">section 7502</a>, a petition is considered delivered and timely filed on the date of the U.S. postmark it bears or on the date of a postmark not made by the USPS as prescribed in regulations.   In reaching its decision, the Tax Court considered the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Tilden v. Commissioner, 846 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2017), a case that is virtually identical to the Pearsons’ case. In that case, the Seventh Circuit reversed the Tax Court’s determination that a petition was untimely that also contained a Stamps.com label indicating it was timely mailed, noting that the IRS and petitioner agreed that the petition was timely filed. The Tax Court held that the Stamps.com label provided a postmark not made by the USPS, and that it was received by the Tax Court not later than it would normally have arrived if it had been postmarked by the USPS in accordance with <a href="/research/federal/cfr26/301.7502-1#cxcr-0000025" resolve="/lr/resolve/3017502-1c1iiib/cxcr#cxcr-0000025" title="301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(B)">reg. section 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(B)</a>. Lauber concluded, “Because the petition was timely mailed under the Secretary’s regulation implementing section 7502(b), it was timely filed under <a href="/research/federal/usc26/6213#cpbr-0000002" resolve="/lr/resolve/6213a/cpbr#cpbr-0000002" title="6213(a)">section 6213(a)</a>.” In a concurring opinion, Ronald L. Buch wrote to expand the court’s determination that there is no legally significant difference between USPS postmarks and those made by postage meters and internet-based postage. Buch concluded that there is “no statutory basis for adhering to a decades-old notion of what constitutes a postmark.” Judges David Gustafson and Richard T. Morrison dissented from the majority opinion. The dissent took issue with the majority’s conclusion that a label printed by a customer and affixed to his own mail qualifies as a “postmark not made by the United States Postal Service.”

Related to <a href="/lr/resolve//1mhkg" target="_blank">Tilden v. Commissioner</a>, No. 15-3838 (7th Cir. 2017).

The Tax Court held that the date on a Stamps.com postage label was a “postmark not made by the United States Postal Service” within the meaning of section 7502(b) and as such, a couple’s Tax Court petition was timely filed lending the court jurisdiction over their deficiency case.

The Tax Court held that the date on a Stamps.com postage label was a “postmark not made by the United States Postal Service” within the meaning of section 7502(b) and as such, a couple’s Tax Court petition was timely filed lending the court jurisdiction over their deficiency case. The IRS issued Lincoln and Victoria Pearson a notice of deficiency. The last day to file a petition with the Tax Court seeking a redetermination was April 22, 2015. The Pearsons’ petition was received and filed by the Tax Court on April 29, 2015. While the envelope containing the petition didn’t bear a USPS postmark, it contained a Stamps.com postage label dated April 21, 2015. The first entry in the USPS certified mail tracking system for the envelope was April 23, 2015. However, the administrative assistant from the law firm representing the Pearsons testified that she mailed the petition on April 21 and a USPS specialist indicated that the envelope was likely collected on April 22, 2015. The IRS agreed that the petition was timely mailed and therefore timely filed. The Tax Court, in an opinion by Judge Albert G. Lauber, explained that the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and its jurisdiction in a tax deficiency case depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and timely filed petition. Lauber further explained that under section 7502, a petition is considered delivered and timely filed on the date of the U.S. postmark it bears or on the date of a postmark not made by the USPS as prescribed in regulations.   In reaching its decision, the Tax Court considered the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Tilden v. Commissioner, 846 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2017), a case that is virtually identical to the Pearsons’ case. In that case, the Seventh Circuit reversed the Tax Court’s determination that a petition was untimely that also contained a Stamps.com label indicating it was timely mailed, noting that the IRS and petitioner agreed that the petition was timely filed. The Tax Court held that the Stamps.com label provided a postmark not made by the USPS, and that it was received by the Tax Court not later than it would normally have arrived if it had been postmarked by the USPS in accordance with reg. section 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(B). Lauber concluded, “Because the petition was timely mailed under the Secretary’s regulation implementing section 7502(b), it was timely filed under section 6213(a).” In a concurring opinion, Ronald L. Buch wrote to expand the court’s determination that there is no legally significant difference between USPS postmarks and those made by postage meters and internet-based postage. Buch concluded that there is “no statutory basis for adhering to a decades-old notion of what constitutes a postmark.” Judges David Gustafson and Richard T. Morrison dissented from the majority opinion. The dissent took issue with the majority’s conclusion that a label printed by a customer and affixed to his own mail qualifies as a “postmark not made by the United States Postal Service.”

Sec. 7502 Timely mailing treated as timely filing and paying

Search Connectors

Retrieving Documents With a Tax Analysts’ Citation:

Field Restricted Searching:

Tax Court Petition Was Timely Filed Based on Stamps.com Label