149 T.C. 20
T.C.2017Background
- The IRS mailed petitioners a notice of deficiency; the 90-day deadline to petition the Tax Court expired April 22, 2015.
- Petitioners’ counsel printed a Stamps.com postage label dated April 21, 2015, affixed it to the envelope containing the petition, and avers she deposited it at a Salt Lake City post office that day.
- The envelope bore a USPS certified-mail tracking number but no USPS cancellation/postmark; USPS tracking shows the item entered processing on April 23 and was delivered to the Court April 29, 2015.
- The Court held the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss in abeyance pending the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Tilden, which addressed nearly identical facts.
- Following Tilden, the Court accepted that (1) a Stamps.com label is a “postmark not made by the United States Postal Service” under §7502(b), (2) USPS tracking data is not a USPS postmark under the governing regulation, and (3) the petition was timely mailed/filed under the Secretary’s §301.7502-1(c) regulations.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Stamps.com printed postage label constitutes a “postmark not made by the USPS” under §7502(b) and §301.7502-1(c) | The Stamps.com date is a non-USPS postmark and, together with the affidavit of mailing, satisfies the timely-mailed rule | Initially argued tracking data showed later entry and therefore untimely; later conceded the item likely was deposited on April 22 and that the Stamps.com label is a non-USPS postmark | The Court held the Stamps.com label is a “postmark[] not made by the United States Postal Service” and entitled to treatment under §7502(b) and the regulations |
| Whether USPS tracking system entries constitute a USPS postmark that would displace a non-USPS postmark under §301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(B)(3) | Non-USPS postmark should control when there is no USPS cancellation on the envelope | Argued tracking data could serve as the functional equivalent of a USPS postmark showing later mail entry | The Court held tracking data is not a USPS postmark within the meaning of the regulation; (B)(3) inapplicable where there is no competing physical USPS postmark |
| Whether petition was “timely mailed” under §301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(B)(1) (received within ordinary time) | The dated Stamps.com label (Apr 21) and typical transit times from Utah make the Apr 29 receipt consistent with timely mailing | Suggested mail likely deposited Apr 22 or later; but did not oppose finding timely mailed under the regs | The Court held the petition was timely under (B)(1) because receipt matched ordinary USPS transit from the origin when compared to a last-day USPS postmark |
| Alternatively, whether petition qualifies under (B)(2) (actual deposit before deadline where received late) | Counsel’s sworn statement that she mailed Apr 21 satisfies actual deposit; alternatively respondent concedes deposit no later than Apr 22 | Commissioner conceded the envelope was likely deposited by Apr 22 | The Court held the petition also qualifies under (B)(2) because it was actually deposited on or before the last prescribed date |
Key Cases Cited
- Tilden v. Commissioner, 846 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2017) (Seventh Circuit: taxpayer’s Stamps.com label timely where no competing USPS postmark)
- Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230 (Tax Ct. 2016) (Tax Court treats statutory filing deadline as jurisdictional)
- Fishman v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. 869 (Tax Ct. 1969) (legislative history recognizes Congress’s concern about private postage meter dates)
- Leventis v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 353 (Tax Ct. 1968) (recognized postage meter date as postmark date for certain receipt-timing analyses)
- Andrews v. Commissioner, 563 F.2d 365 (8th Cir. 1977) (statutory filing deadline in deficiency cases is jurisdictional)