Opinion
6826-23
05-23-2024
SAINT CLAIR NGUEDJIP & CHRISTINE YVETTE NGUEDJIP, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Jennifer E. Siegel, Special Trial Judge.
On April 24, 2023, the Court received a Petition (Simplified Form), Tax Court Form 2, and filed it to commence the instant case. Attached to the Petition was a Notice of Deficiency dated January 9, 2023 (Notice). Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground the Petition was not timely filed, and petitioners filed an Objection. We held a hearing on the Motion on May 15, 2024.
The last day to timely file a petition in response to the Notice was April 10, 2023. I.R.C. §§ 6213(a), 7503. If petitioners mailed the Petition on or before that date, the Petition would be deemed timely. I.R.C. § 7502. However, the envelope in which the Petition arrived at the Court bore no postmark.
In cases where there is no postmark, we permit the introduction of extrinsic evidence to assist in determining whether the mailing was timely. See Sylvan v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 548 (1975). Petitioners provided a copy of their receipt for the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) money order which accompanied the Petition; it was marked with a date before the last day to timely file. The date listed next to both signatures on the Petition was a date before the last day to timely file. And we know that mail sent to the Court through the USPS undergoes an irradiation process which can cause a delay in receipt. See, e.g., Seely v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-6 at *7 n.3. Importantly, petitioners' testimony during the hearing as to the circumstances surrounding the mailing of the Petition was sincere and credible. Accordingly, we find that the Petition was timely mailed.
Premises considered, and for cause more fully appearing in the transcript of the hearing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed June 16, 2023, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that, on or before July 22, 2024, respondent shall file an Answer. It is further
ORDERED that this case is restored to the general docket.