This can't be correct, can it: Filed/postmarked 1040 for 2015 refund on 4/15/2019, but rejected as too late?

[FlyingRon]

The stamp on the certified mail receipt IS the same as the postmark. That is the whole point of it. The clerk will hit the envelope and the receipt with the postmark stamp as the mail is accepted.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I have the answer for you but I'm going to wait three years before I write it.

 

[Taxing Matters]

The stamp on the certified mail receipt IS the same as the postmark. That is the whole point of it. The clerk will hit the envelope and the receipt with the postmark stamp as the mail is accepted.

The stamp on the receipt is not the postmark, however. I agree with you that in most cases the post office does postmark it immediately when the purchase is made, so rarely is it a problem. But I mention it because it was enough of an issue in one case for the court to emphasize that the postmark on the envelope is what matters.

 

[FlyingRon]

The stamp on the receipt is not the postmark, however. I agree with you that in most cases the post office does postmark it immediately when the purchase is made, so rarely is it a problem. But I mention it because it was enough of an issue in one case for the court to emphasize that the postmark on the envelope is what matters.

I disagree. It *IS* the postmark. It is REQUIRED to be the same as the postmark on the letter. The form even says "POSTMARK HERE." You have some serious malfeasance of the USPS personnel if they do not immediately postmark both the certified receipt and letter identically at the time they are tendered.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I disagree. It *IS* the postmark. It is REQUIRED to be the same as the postmark on the letter.

Then you disagree with the USPS itself.

It defines the postmark in section 1-1.3 of its handbook PO 408 as follows: "A postmark is an official Postal Service™ imprint applied in black ink on the address side of a stamped mailpiece." (bolding added.)

So by that definition it is the mark on the envelope that counts as a postmark, not what is printed on the certified mail receipt or other mail service receipt. And in any event, it is the postmark on the envelope itself that matters for purposes of IRC § 7502, as the statute says in relevant part "the date of the United States postmark stamped on the cover in which such return, claim, statement, or other document, or payment, is mailed shall be deemed to be the date of delivery or the date of payment, as the case may be." IRC § 7502(a)(bolding added).

I'm not disagreeing that in practice they'll end up being the same in the vast majority of cases. But there is a distinction between the postmarks on the envelope and the stamp on the receipt you get. And given the over 17 billion first class mail items delivered just last year alone it is inevitable that here and there mistakes will get made. No human system is ever perfect. The case law emphasizes the importance of the postmark on the envelope for purposes of IRC § 7502. The 8th Circuit discussed that, outlining the law as follows:

The cases establish that section 7502 “cannot be and was not intended to be satisfied unless a postmark date has been stamped on the ‘cover.’ ” Madison v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1301, 1302 (1957). The emphasis on postmark is made even more clear by the cases which hold that the date of an actual postmark is controlling for purposes of the statute, and evidence that a document should have been postmarked earlier is irrelevant. See, e.g., Feldman v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 329 (1966) (postmark date of November 1, 1960, one day after filing deadline, made filing untimely, even though evidence proved that document had been mailed on October 31, 1960). The tax court has also held that a document mailed prior to a filing deadline but delivered after the deadline was not timely filed where the post office failed to postmark the envelope, even though the envelope was in fact delivered. The tax court held that evidence of when the envelope should have been postmarked was inadmissible. Rappaport v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 709, 711 (1971), aff'd, 456 F.2d 1335 (2d Cir.1972). Thus, in section 7502 Congress dealt with issues of proof, and determined that a postmark is evidence verifiable beyond any self-serving testimony of a taxpayer who claims that a document was timely mailed. A postmark is proof not only that the document was in fact mailed, but also of the date on which it was mailed. The act of mailing is not significant for purposes of the statute but placement of a postmark is. See, e.g., Madison, 28 T.C. at 1302–03 (argument that petition was timely filed because it was mailed prior to filing deadline held incorrect given statutory requirement of postmark); Rappaport, 55 T.C. at 711 (“[T]his Court has consistently taken the position that the requirement of a postmark is essential to obtaining the benefits of section 7502(a).”). Thus, any case in which a postmark is actually established is distinguishable from either Miller or Deutsch, in which the only evidence was that of mailing, and in which no postmark was ever established.​

​

Estate of Wood v. Comm'r, 909 F.2d 1155, 1161 (8th Cir. 1990), nonacq. recommended by RE: ESTATE OF LEONARD A. WOOD V. COMMISSIONER, AOD-1991-24 (IRS AOD Oct. 22, 1991).

The Court went on to conclude as follows:

To obtain the benefit of section 7502, the taxpayer must offer proof of postmark—not mere evidence of mailing—as by the testimony of the postal employee who handled and stamped the document. See, e.g., Rappaport, 55 T.C. at 711 (evidence of mailing and of “when the envelope ... would have been postmarked in the normal course of the business of the U.S. Post Office Department is irrelevant and immaterial and therefore inadmissible.”). Moreover, by the terms of the statute, only direct proof of postmark, which proof will be extraordinarily rare outside the instances specified in the statute, will satisfy the requirements of the act.​

​

Id. In the Estate of Wood case, the taxpayer was saved by the testimony of the post office employee who had remembered the taxpayers coming in with the return because of a conversation they had and who testified that she had personally hand postmarked the mail piece in question.

Again, I'll emphasize it would be the unusual circumstance that the stamp on the receipt would not match the actual postmark, but it does happen. I know of one such instance myself in a mailing I did. The post office clerk hand stamped the receipt I had but the hand stamp was, unknown to me at the time, set with the date from the day before as I was among the first customers in that day and the clerk had not updated it. The mail item itself was, however, machine postmarked and had the correct date on it. Now, in that case I wasn't harmed by the mistake. The envelope still had the correct postmark date, and thus there would have been no problem had it been critical that the exact date was marked. (I mailed it a month before the deadline, so one day wouldn't matter). Point is, though, these kinds of things CAN happen, even if they don't happen often.