Attorney-at-Law

STAMP OUT STAMPS

In Uncategorized on 07/20/2015 at 16:07

.com – Part Deux

Here’s a reprise of an oldie but goodie, my blogpost “Stamp Out Stamps.com,” 10/23/14, brought once again into my ken by the author of the order in my aforementioned blogpost, The Judge With a Heart, STJ Armen.

You’ll remember that poor old Joe Sanchez relied on a friend with a computer and stamps.com, which produced a mark dated the last day of the magic 90, but the USPS overrode that with a legible mark one day later, relegating Joe to Outer Darkness, with weeping, wailing and gnashing of clichés.

Well, today comes Robert H. Tilden, Docket No. 11089-15, filed 7/20/15, playing the stamps.com gambit, and he survives to fight another day—maybe.

Bob claims “a Stamps.com ‘postmark’ is ‘evidence of a timely filed petition pursuant to Reg. §301.7502-1.’ Order, at p. 1.

The magic last day of the 90 was April 21. STJ Armen takes it from there.

“The ‘Petition For Redetermination Of Deficiency (Regular Tax Court Case)’ was received by the Court in the late morning of Wednesday, April 29… and filed shortly before noon on that day. The petition was sent via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) by first-class mail. The envelope containing the petition bears a mailing label with a ‘postmark’ by ‘Stamps.com’ of April 21…. The envelope also bears a ‘certified mail’ sticker with a 20-digit tracking number (the tracking number).

“Because of the aforementioned tracking number, the USPS website provides tracking information regarding the flow of the petition through the USPS mail system from arrival through delivery. Thus, the first entry reflects an arrival date and time of April 23… at 2:48 p.m. at USPS facility in Salt Lake City, UT 84199, and the last entry reflects a delivery date and time of April 29… at 11:02 a.m. at Washington, D.C. 20217. (The latter ZIP Code, 20217, is the Court’s dedicated ZIP Code.). Order, at p. 2.

IRS moves to toss Bob’s petition, citing the USPS Tracking Number as showing real mailing April 23, two days late.

Bob parries with “…the envelope containing the petition ‘bears a postmark date within the time for filing’, citing section 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(B), Proced. & Admin. Regs., regarding ‘Postmark[s] Made By Other Than U.S. Postal Service’ for the proposition that a postmark ‘which, although not made by the U.S. Postal Service still complies with the timely mailing/timely filing rules of I.R.C. §7502.’ Order, at pp. 2-3.

STJ Armen wants a reply from IRS on the subject. I can imagine what it will be. And where Bob’s petition is going.

But Bob gets a Taishoff “good try, first class” nevertheless.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: