TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Dennis Kelly & Elizabeth Kelly
Docket Number: 17028-15SL
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/09/2016
Pages: 6

RS UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 DENNIS KELLY & ELIZABETH KELLY, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 17028-15SL ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction will be entered. Dated: Washington, D.C. May 9, 2016 (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge SERVED May 10 2016 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis Carluzzo 2 April 21, 2016 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dennis Kelly & Elizabeth Kelly v. Commissioner Docket No. 17028-15SL THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the following represents the Court's oral findings of facts and opinion (bench opinion). Section references made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152. This Section 6330(d) case (at least according to the petition) is a small tax case subject to the provisions of Section 7463 and Rules 170 through 175. The order to be entered in this case shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. This case is now before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, filed August 31, 2015. Petitioners' objection to respondent's motion was filed October 5, 2015. By Order dated March 7, 2016, respondent's 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 motion was assigned to the undersigned for 2 disposition. After consultation with the parties, by 3 Order dated March 16, 2016, respondent's motion was 4 set for hearing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 5 April 20, 2016. The case was called from the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 calendar as scheduled. Kirsten E. Brimer appeared on behalf of respondent, offered evidence, and argued in support of the motion. Petitioners appeared on their own behalf and opposed it. The petition, filed July 2, 2015, places in dispute petitioners' 2006, 2007, and 2008 federal income tax liabilities (underlying liabilities). According to the petition, and if only by implication, the case was commenced pursuant to Section 6330(d) in response to a collection notice that petitioners now agree does not constitute a notice of determination within the meaning of that section. Respondent's motion is based upon the absence of such a notice of determination, and this 20 matter would be easily resolved except for 21 22 23 24 25 respondent's diligence in pointing out that the underlying liabilities result from the assessment made as a result of a defaulted notice of deficiency issued and mailed to petitioners on February 8, 2010, for the above-referenced years. See Secs. 6212, 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 6213(a), (c). Respondent correctly notes, that if the petition was intended to have been filed in response to that notice of deficiency, the Court is 4 without jurisdiction because the petition was not 5 6 7 filed timely. See Sec. 6213(a). In fact, it is unlikely that the petition was filed in response to that notice of deficiency. 8 Petitioners claim never to have received that notice, 9 and we accept their claim on the point. Giving them 10 11 12 the benefit of the doubt, we'll proceed as though petitioners commenced this case in order to challenge the validity of the assessment in any event. 13 Petitioners question whether a notice of deficiency 14 15 16 17 18 for the years referenced in the petition was actually issued and argue that their failure to receive that notice of deficiency, if issued, renders it, and the assessments that arise from it, are invalid. We are satisfied from the information provided in connection 19 with respondent's motion and the evidence presented 20 21 22 23 24 25 at the hearing that the notice of deficiency was issued and mailed to petitioners' last known address as claimed by respondent and as required by Section 6212. As noted, we also accept petitioners' claim that the notice of deficiency was never, or at least not timely, received by them. Neither the notice of 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 deficiency nor the assessments of the underlying liabilities, however, are invalid for that reason. If a notice of.deficiency is properly issued and 4 mailed, it is valid even if it is never received by 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 the taxpayer. See Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 48, 52 (1983). If the case was commenced under Section 6330(d), then we lack jurisdiction over the years placed in dispute because, consistent with the position taken in respondent's motion, no notice of determination within the meaning of Section 6330(d) has been issued to petitioners for the years placed in dispute in the petition. If the case was commenced in response to the above-referenced notice of deficiency, then we are without jurisdiction because the petition was not filed within the period prescribed by Section 6213(a). Either way, the Court is without jurisdiction and petitioners must pursue the relief sought in the petition in other administrative ways or, if appropriate, in a different federal court. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction 24 will be entered. 25 This concludes the Court's bench opinion in 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 this matter. (Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com