Did an on-time mailing count as a timely California tax payment when it was addressed to the wrong city and remailed correctly after the deadline?

Plain-English summary

A state tax or assessment was due at the Treasurer's Sacramento office on August 15. The taxpayer mailed a check from Los Angeles on August 14 but addressed it to the Treasurer in Los Angeles. After the envelope was returned, the taxpayer remailed it correctly; the second envelope was postmarked August 17.

Former Political Code section 1034 treated a mailed remittance as received on the envelope's postmark date. The Attorney General concluded that the rule implied proper addressing, because a mailing that never reached the correct state office could not count as payment.

Only the correctly addressed second mailing qualified. Because its postmark was after the deadline, the letter said the first mailing was properly rejected and the penalty properly imposed.

Common questions

Did the August 14 postmark make the payment timely?

No, because that mailing was addressed to the wrong city.

Which mailing counted?

The correctly addressed August 17 remailing.

Did section 1034 expressly say “properly addressed”?

No. The Attorney General treated that requirement as implied.

Citations and references

• Former California Political Code section 1034 — historical mailed-remittance postmark rule interpreted

Source

• Annotated Legal Opinions collection: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/annotations-menu.htm
• Annotation page: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol2/suta/170-0000-all.html
• Original supporting opinion: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/annotations/170-0009-550.pdf

Original ruling text

170.0009.550
SAN FRANCISCO, April 22, 1940
Honorable Harry B. Riley
State Controller
Sacramento, California
Dear Sir:
We have your letter of April 17 asking for an interpretation of the application of Section 1034 of the Political Code to the following state of facts: A certain tax or assessment was due and payable at the office of the Treasurer in Sacramento on August 15. Subsequent to that date you received a check in the mail, in an envelope post-marked August 17. It appears that the check was originally mailed August 14 in Los Angeles but the envelope apparently was mis-addressed to the Treasurer at Los Angeles instead of Sacramento and was returned to the sender who remailed the check in the envelope which you received and which was postmarked the 17th. The section in question reads as follows: “If a remittance to cover a payment required by law to be made to the State or to a State agency is sent through the United States mail, the State or the State agency shall treat the remittance as if it had been received on the date shown by the Post office cancellation mark stamped upon the envelope containing the remittance.” We are of the opinion that under the statute only the second mailing, that is, the mailing where the envelope was properly addressed, can be considered. A mailing to an improper address does not meet the requirements of the statute. While the code does not specifically state that it must be properly addressed, we believe that this is implied, for it is obvious that a mailing that never reaches the State cannot be considered as a payment of the tax. We therefore believe that you have properly rejected the first mailing and imposed a penalty because the second mailing was not within the time permitted within the statute. Very truly yours, EARL WARREN, Attorney General By

R. L. CHAMBERLAIN
Deputy

RLC:MM