noting that the regulations then in effect “provide[] that if the postmark on the envelope is not legible, the petitioner has the burden of proving the time when the postmark was made”
How later courts described this case
- noting that the regulations then in effect “provide[] that if the postmark on the envelope is not legible, the petitioner has the burden of proving the time when the postmark was made”
- “Prior to the enactment of section 7502, timely filing depended on the vicissitudes of the mail, with the time of delivery varying as to the geographical area of mailing, the seasonal demands imposed on the post office, and the postal performance in the individual case presented. In order to alleviate hardships resulting from delays in particular cases, a presumption of timely delivery was often employed. . . . Congress enacted section 7502 to eliminate the inequities resulting from variations in postal performance when a document is timely mailed.”
- proof of mailing together with time of delivery established timely postmark
- sec. 7502 applied to filing of Tax Court petitions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Tannenwald, J., concurring: As the author of this Court’s opinion in Rappaport, I feel compelled to append a brief comment. I am now convinced that our decision in Rappaport was wrong and, as the Supreme Court admonished in Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106 (1940), I believe we can and should reject the “doctrine of disability at self-correction.”
Goffe, J., agrees with this concurring opinion.