TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Carmel Ruth Perceval
Docket Number: 149-15
Judge: Gustafson
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/25/2016
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 CARMEL RUTH PERCEVAL, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent PA ) ) ) ) Docket No. 149-15. ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to the opinion of the Court as set forth in the transcript of the proceeding at Tampa, Florida, on March 8, 2016, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before the undersigned judge at Tampa, Florida, 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 will be issued granting respondent's motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction and dismissing the petition in this case as untimely filed. Dated: Washington, D.C. March 25, 2016 (Signed) David Gustafson Judge SERVED Mar 25 2016 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge David Gustafson 2 March 8, 2016 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Carmel Ruth Perceval v. Commissioner Docket No. 149-15 The Court has decided to render the following as its oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. This Bench Opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, and Tax Court Rule 152; and it shall not be relied on as precedent in any other case. On February 5, 2016, respondent, the Commissioner of the IRS, filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by I.R.C. section 6213(a) with respect to a statutory notice of deficiency ("NOD") that was sent to petitioner Carmel Ruth Perceval for tax year 2007. The Commissioner supplemented his motion on February 19, 2016. The motion states that petitioner Carmel Ruth Perceval objects to the granting of the motion, but she has filed no response to the motion. We will grant the Commissioner's motion. Background Ms. Perceval's addresses As of the following dates, the IRS's addresses 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 for Ms. Perceval were as follows: Before 2/11/2008: An address on Willow Bend 3 Trail 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 As of 2/11/2008: A post office box address As of 6/2/2008: The Willow Bend Trail address As of 10/19/2009: An address on Sand Lake Point The supplement to the Commissioner's motion shows that the 6/2/2008 change to the Willow Bend Trail address was made because, in that month, the IRS received from Ms. Perceval a Form 3911, "Taxpayer Statement Regarding Refund", on which she gave the 12 Willow Bend Trail address as her address. 13 14 15 16 17 The NOD On September 15, 2008, the IRS issued to Ms. Perceval a notice of deficiency that determined a deficiency of Ms. Perceval's income tax for the year 2007. The NOD was sent to Ms. Perceval's Willow Bend 18 Trail address. 19 Ms. Perceval did not file a petition with this 20 Court within 90 days of the issuance of the NOD 21 22 23 24 25 (which would have been December 15, 2008). Identity theft issue Sometime thereafter, Ms. Perceval evidently requested that the IRS give her a tax refund for the year 2007 on the basis of alleged identity theft. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company The IRS denied her the refund by a letter dated 5 December 5, 2014. The petition On January 5, 2015 (i.e., 30 days after the IRS issued the_December 2014 letter denying the identity theft refund for 2007, and more than 6 years afer the IRS issued the September 2008 NOD for 2007), Ms. Perceval filed her petition in this Court. To her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 petition she attached the December 2014 identity 10 11 12 13 theft letter, and not the September 2008 NOD, and in the petition she alleged the identity theft. The IRS's motion On February 5, 2016, the Commissioner filed a 14 motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was not filed within 90 days after the issuance of the NOD. See sec. 6213(a). The motion states that Ms. Perceval objects to the granting of the motion because she believes that the address to which the NOD was mailed was not her last known address, but the Commissioner's motion did not explain how the IRS had come to use the address that appeared on the NOD. By order dated February 8, 2016, the Court directed Ms. Perceval to file a response to the Commissioner's motion to dismiss on or before February 26, 2016, and ordered that the Court would 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 hear argument from the parties in Tampa, Florida, on 2 March 7, 2016, at the calendar call of the trial 3 4 5 session for which this case had already been scheduled. On February 19, 2016, the Commissioner filed a 6 First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Jurisdiction which shows that the IRS obtained this address from Ms. Perceval's Form 3911 filed in June 2008. As of this date, the Court has received no response from Ms. Perceval. When this case was called from the calendar in Tampa, Florida, on March 7, 2016, there was no appearance by or on behalf of Ms. Perceval. Refund jurisdiction Discussion Ms. Perceval' s petition seems to complain of IRS action that denied her a refund. If Ms. Perceval did file with the IRS something that could fairly be characterized as a request for refund for purposes of section 7422(a) (which is unclear on our record), then arguably the IRS' s December 2014 letter was, for purposes of section 6532(a), a "decision thereon" that disallowed that refund claim. However, even so assuming, this Court does not have general 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 jurisdiction to litigate refund claims; rather, that jurisdiction is reserved to the Federal district courts and the Court of Federal Claims. See Weber v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 348, 366-67 (2012). Thus, to the extent the petition seeks a refund, we would dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Commissioner's motion characterizes the petition otherwise, and Ms. Perceval does not challenge his characterization. 10 Deficiency jurisdiction 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Section 6212(a) provides that the IRS "is authorized to send notice of such deficiency to the taxpayer", and section 6212(b)(1) provides that the NOD should be "mailed to the taxpayer at his last known address". Section 6213(a) provides that "Within 90 days ... after the notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed ..., the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency". Consequently, the Tax Court cannot entertain a deficiency case unless (a) the IRS has validly issued a notice of deficiency, and (b) the taxpayer has filed a timely petition. See Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). A failure to meet either of these provisions requires the Tax Court to dismiss a 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 petition. Here it is clear that, as the Commissioner contends, Ms. Perceval did not file a petition within the 90-day period (issue "(b)" above), so we know we cannot entertain this suit. However, we construe Ms. Perceval's challenge to the last-known-address issue as an assertion that we should dismiss the petition on the alternate ground--i.e., that no NOD was. validly issued (issue "(a)" above). The distinction does make a difference: If the purported NOD that the IRS issued was not valid, then no assessment could legally have been founded on it, and we would dismiss the case in petitioner's favor. See Weinroth v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 430, 435 (1980). (I.e., if the deficiency was improperly assessed without a valid NOD, then it must be abated.) But if a valid NOD was issued, then our dismissal of the case would leave the tax assessment in place (obviously, an outcome adverse to Ms. Perceval). Because the Commissioner's adequate factual showing is unchallenged, we can easily resolve the case: The September 2008 NOD was sent to Ms. Perceval's last-known-address, an address that she herself had given to the IRS 3-1/2 months earlier in 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 Capital Reporting Company 9 June 2008. Therefore, the NOD was valid. Since Ms. Perceval did not file her petition within the 90-day period (but instead waited more than 6 years), the petition was untimely, and we must dismiss the petition as untimely filed. We will issue an order granting the Commissioner' s motion to dismiss, and we will dismiss the petition as untimely filed. This concludes the Court's oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 1:27 p.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