Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01742/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01742-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Appellee
Van Keith Edwards
Appellant

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 15-1742 & 15-1743

___________

VAN KEITH EDWARDS,

Appellant

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States Tax Court

(T.C. Nos. 13-26055 & 13-29415)

Tax Court Judge: Honorable David Gustafson

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 6, 2015

Before: GREENAWAY, JR., SCIRICA and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed October 6, 2015)

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

In this consolidated appeal, appellant Van Keith Edwards appeals pro so from the 

Tax Court’s dismissal of two petitions for lack of prosecution. For the reasons that 

follow, we will affirm the Tax Court’s judgment.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent

Case: 15-1742 Document: 003112093880 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2015
2

I.

Because we write primarily for the benefit of the parties, we provide only a brief 

summary of those facts which are necessary to our resolution of this appeal. 

Edwards did not file timely federal income tax returns for tax years 2009 or 2010. 

On February 18, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) prepared a substitute for 

return (“SFR”) for 2009, pursuant to I.R.C. § 6020(b), based on information regarding 

Edwards’s income received from third-party payors. On June 3, 2013, the SFR 

documents were mailed to Edwards. These included a Form 4549 (Income Tax 

Examination Changes), a Form 886-A (Explanation of Items), and a signed Form 13496 

(Certification). On June 11, 2013, Edwards sent a letter to the IRS disagreeing with the 

income reported in the SFR, to which he attached a 2009 Form W-2 wage statement. In 

response, the IRS agreed that it had incorrectly double-counted Edwards’s wages and 

withholdings from one employer, made corresponding corrections to the SFR, and sent 

Edwards revised Forms 4549 and 886-A on August 2, 2013. The August 2 letter advised 

Edwards that, if he disagreed with IRS’s findings, he should send an explanation and 

supporting documentation to the IRS’s Memphis, Tennessee office no later than August 

17, 2013. The letter warned Edwards that, if he owed additional tax and did not respond, 

the IRS would send him a notice of deficiency disallowing the questioned items and 

proposing an increase to his tax liability. On August 28, Edwards mailed a 2009 Form 

1040 tax return to the IRS’s Kansas City, Missouri office. The IRS did not accept or file 

the late return. On September 15 or 16, 2013, the IRS issued Edwards a notice of 

Case: 15-1742 Document: 003112093880 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2015
3

deficiency for 2009 based on its revised SFR, determining that Edwards had a tax 

deficiency of $19,599, plus penalties for his failure to file returns, to pay estimated taxes, 

and to pay the tax for that year. 

Edwards filed a timely petition for redetermination of liability in the Tax Court. 

See T.C. No. 13-29415. Several months later, he moved to dismiss the petition pursuant 

to Tax Court Rule 53, or in alternative, for summary judgment, on the grounds that the 

Tax Court lacked jurisdiction over the petition. In short, Edwards asserted that the notice 

of deficiency was invalid because it was based on an invalid SFR. The Tax Court 

rejected Edwards’s arguments regarding the invalidity of the SFR and the notice, noted 

that disputed issues of fact remained regarding his 2009 tax liability, and denied 

Edwards’s motion. 

For the 2010 tax year, the IRS prepared an SFR and issued a notice of deficiency 

on August 5, 2013, determining a tax deficiency of $23,068, plus penalties.1 Edwards 

filed a timely petition for redetermination in the Tax Court. See T.C. No. 13-26055. 

Edwards does not appear to dispute the income or withholding amounts reported 

on the substitute returns for 2009 and 2010. Rather, he contends that he is entitled to 

 

1 The record does not reflect whether Edwards ever received or responded to the 2010 

SFR before the notice of deficiency was issued. Edwards alleges that he filed his 2010

Form 1040 on or about August 31, 2013, but the parties dispute whether the IRS ever 

received the return. Edwards has not claimed that the 2010 SFR was procedurally 

deficient, and did not move to dismiss his Tax Court petition for that year. 

Case: 15-1742 Document: 003112093880 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/06/2015
4

additional deductions and adjustments for those tax years, and should not have been 

penalized for his late filing and failure to pay. 

On July 14, 2014, the Tax Court scheduled both cases for trial beginning on 

December 15, 2014. The notice setting the case for trial directed the parties to exchange 

documents and file pretrial memoranda by December 1, and to file stipulated facts by 

December 15. Both the notice and the Tax Court’s standing pretrial order directed the 

parties to contact each other promptly, and warned that failure to cooperate with each 

other, to comply with the Court’s orders, or to appear at trial might result in dismissal of 

the case and entry of decision against the non-compliant party. The Commissioner 

submitted pretrial memoranda to the Tax Court on November 28, 2014. Edwards did not. 

On December 5, 2014, the Tax Court granted the Commissioner’s motions to consolidate 

the cases for trial, briefing, and opinion. It also issued an order reminding Edwards of the 

upcoming trial date and its associated deadlines and obligations, noting that the Court had 

been unable to reach him by telephone for several days, and directing Edwards to call the 

Court to schedule a pretrial conference. Edwards did not call, and did not appear for trial 

on December 15. The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petitions for failure to 

prosecute, and the Tax Court directed Edwards to file a response by January 5, 2015. On 

January 14, 2015, having received no response from Edwards, the Tax Court dismissed 

both petitions for lack of prosecution and affirmed the tax deficiencies and penalties set 

forth in the notices of deficiency. These appeals followed. 

Case: 15-1742 Document: 003112093880 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/06/2015
5

II.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We 

review the Tax Court’s legal conclusions de novo, and its factual findings for clear error. 

Anderson v. Comm’r, 698 F.3d 160, 164 (3d Cir. 2012). We review the dismissal for 

failure to prosecute under an abuse of discretion standard. Sauers v. Comm’r, 771 F.2d 

64, 66 (3d Cir. 1985).

We agree with the Tax Court’s determination that it had jurisdiction over 

Edwards’s petitions. The Tax Court acquires jurisdiction when a taxpayer files a timely 

petition from a validly issued notice of deficiency. See Robinson v. United States, 920 

F.2d 1157, 1158 (3d Cir. 1990); I.R.C. § 6213. The notice must be properly mailed, and 

is valid “as long as it informs a taxpayer that the IRS has determined that a deficiency 

exists and specifies the amount of the deficiency.” Selgas v. Comm’r, 475 F.3d 697, 700 

(5th Cir. 2007). 

Edwards argues that the 2009 notice was invalid because it was based on an 

“invalid” SFR. Even assuming that the 2009 SFR did not meet all the procedural 

requirements of § 6020, his argument is unavailing. Courts have held repeatedly that the 

deficiency procedures set forth in §§ 6211-13 of the Internal Revenue Code do not 

require the IRS to prepare a substitute return under § 6020 before determining and issuing 

a notice of deficiency. See Selgas, 475 F.3d at 700; United States v. Stafford, 983 F.2d 

25, 27 (5th Cir. 1993); Geiselman v. United States, 961 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1992); Schiff 

Case: 15-1742 Document: 003112093880 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/06/2015
6

v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 832 (2d Cir. 1990); Roat v. Comm’r, 847 F.2d 1379, 

1381-82 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Edwards also asserts that the deficiency notices were invalid because he 

eventually filed Form 1040 tax returns for 2009 and 2010. He appears to argue that—at 

least with regard to the 2009 return, which was mailed after the deadline to respond to the 

IRS’s revised SFR, but shortly before the 2009 notice of deficiency was issued—the IRS 

was obliged to base its deficiency determination on Edwards’s own return, rather than the 

SFR. Neither of his untimely returns invalidated the deficiency notices, or deprived the 

Tax Court of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Stevens v. Comm’r, 709 F.2d 12, 13 (5th Cir. 1983) 

(“[T]he Tax Court’s jurisdiction is predicated on the Commissioner’s determination that a 

deficiency exists . . . not on the correctness of his determination . . . . The taxpayers’ 

argument . . . that the notice was invalid because they had reported the reimbursement on 

an amended return filed before the notice was issued . . . . amounts to little more than a 

charge that the Commissioner was mistaken in determining that a deficiency existed.”). 

Edwards has not advanced any arguments on appeal challenging the Tax Court’s 

dismissal of his petitions for lack of prosecution, and we do not see any error in the Tax 

Court’s decision. Edwards repeatedly failed to comply with the Tax Court’s orders 

regarding cooperation and preparation for trial, did not file any pretrial memoranda, did 

not respond to the Court’s order to call chambers, failed to appear for trial, and, finally, 

failed to respond to the motions to dismiss. 

Accordingly, we will affirm the Tax Court’s judgment.

Case: 15-1742 Document: 003112093880 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/06/2015