Bruce Edward Haddix and Rae Ann Haddix, 2015 T. C. Memo. 220, filed 11/18/15, could sure use the Greek Deus ex Machina, but the machina they used, apparently a USPS self-service kiosk, dated their petition one day late (August 16 rather than, as Bruce and Rae Ann claimed, August 15, the last day of the thirty), and it arrived at 400 Second Ave in The City that L’Enfant Built eight days late. So Judge Vasquez must bounce Bruce’s and Rae Ann’s CDP review.

This is a variation on the Section 7502 mailed-is-filed gambit, and it’s warning to practitioners.

Just because the USPS owns and operates the postage meter, it’s still a postage meter, and you can’t control it. So the date that’s shown on the postage issued by USPS is the date you’re stuck with. And the date may change after the last minute that a piece of mail posted in the dropbox in the post office would be postmarked with the date you’re trying to establish. So remember, if the magic moment is 5 p.m., using the self-service kiosk at 5:01 p.m. may not help you. You’ll get the next day’s date on the machine-made postage.

Now Judge Vasquez is very careful. He’s not ruling on whether the self-service kiosk date is a Section 7502 qualifying postmark.

“We need not address whether the markings in question constitute a postmark for purposes of section 7502 because the existence (or nonexistence) of an August 16, 2013, postmark does not affect the outcome in this case. We must, in other words, dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction under either scenario. For instance, if the markings constitute a postmark, section 7502 offers no comfort to petitioners because they failed to satisfy the threshold prerequisite to the application of section 7502—a timely postmark. If, on the other hand, the markings do not constitute a postmark, thereby opening the door for extrinsic proof by petitioners that their petition was mailed on or before August 15, 2013, petitioners have nevertheless failed to carry their burden of proving that the petition was timely mailed. Petitioners in fact chose not to attend the hearings or provide documentation from the U.S. Postal Service (i.e., certified mail receipt) or other persuasive evidence establishing that they mailed the petition on or before August 15, 2013. The only evidence of mailing that petitioners presented is a copy of a bank statement–attached to their response to respondent’s motion to dismiss–showing a credit card charge on ‘August 16, 2013 12:00 a.m.’ This evidence alone is clearly not sufficient to prove that they mailed the petition by the August 15, 2013, date.” 2015 T. C. Memo. 220, at p. 8. (Emphasis by the Court).

I need not elaborate. But if you’re really interested, see my blogpost “Stamp Out Stamps,” 10/23/14. Practitioner, read and heed.

Further to the foregoing, I received the following e-mail on 8/6/16, purportedly from Bruce Haddix, which I here reprint without comment:

Comment: You totally misrepresented the facts. The Petition was mailed within 30 days, the label was intentionally blacked out by a branch of the US Government. We now have 2 intentionally blacked out labels dated 2 years apart.

Judge Juan F. Vasquez cheated by ignoring the Order putting the MTD in Abeyance and for the case to be continued for trial.

Judge Juan F. Vasquez cheated by granting Motion(s) to Quash without affording the parties the right to challenge the truthfulness of the facts presented.

Judge Juan F. Vasquez cheated by denying Motions to Vacate Motions to Quash based on fact these motions were based upon bald face lies.

Have you ever heard of the right to a fair and speedy trial? This case is about exposing the corruption in Johnson County Texas. Watch Conan O’Brian gets Deputized.
You should have done a little more research before doing the story, we now have 2 blacked out mailing labels and 3 tax cases, with more added each year. Also civil case Jeremy Ryan Haddix v. State of Texas and the criminal conduct that occurred on that case.

Cheating is Cheating, get the story right!