TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Indra Deo
Docket Number: 21103-12
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/20/2013
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 INDRA DEO, V. Petitioner, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OR D E R Docket No.21103-12 Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of this case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa in San Francisco, California on October 23, 2013, containing her 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 of Jurisdiction. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date: Washington, DC November 20, 2013 SElWED NOV 2 2 2013 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa 2 October 23, 2013 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Indra Deo v. Commissioner Docket No. 21103-12 r 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 fact and opinion. These oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. 13 All section references are to the Internal Revënue 14 15 Code for 2009 and 2010, the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of 16 Practice and Procedure. 17 18 19 20 21 22 This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Respondent moves to dismiss this case on the ground that petitioner did not file the petition within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502. The Court set respondent's 23 motion for hearing on the Court's October 21, 2013 24 25 trial session in San Francisco, California. Neither petitioner or anyone authorized to 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 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 Capital Reporting Company represent petition represented either at calendar DLK call or the hearing on respondent's motion. Lesley Hale appeared on behalf of respondent. The issue for decision is whether petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court. We hold that she did not, and therefore we shall grant respondent's motion to dismiss. FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes or the parties do not dispute the following facts. Petitioner resided in Hayward, California, at the time she filed the petition in this case. Respondent sent a deficiency notice by certified mail to petitioner at her last known address on May 4, 2012. Respondent determined in the deficiency notice that petitioner had a $5,731.80 deficiency in Federal income tax for 2009, a $1,146.36 accuracy- related penalty for 2009, a $140,771 deficiency for 2010, and a $28,154.20 accuracy-related penalty for 2010. These amounts stem primarily by petitioner's failure to include cancellation of indebtedness income. The deficiency notice stated that petitioner had until August 2nd, 2012 in which to file a petition to contest respondent's 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 determinations in the deficiency notice. August 2, 2012 was the end of the 90-day period for timely filing of a petition, and was not a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia. Petitioner failed to file a petition by August 2, 2012. Instead, petitioner mailed a petition to this Court on August 21, 2012, which date was 109 days after the mailing of the deficiency notice. A copy of the petition served upon respondent bears a notation that the date of the U.S. postmark stamped on the cover, in which the petition was mailed to the Court was August 16, 2012, which was 104 days after the mailing of the deficiency notice. Respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Respondent contends that dismissal·for lack of jurisdiction is required because petitioner failed to file a timely petition. 20 Petitioner has not filed an objection to respondent's 21 motion, although ordered to do so, nor did petitioner 22 appear at the hearing to object to respondent's 23 motion, or file a written statement pursuant to Rule 24 25 50(c) in lieu of attending the hearing. OPINION 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 We now address whether petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court. The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiency depends on the issuance of a valid deficiency notice and a timely-filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142 (1988). The Commissioner may send a deficiency notice to the taxpayer by certified or registered 15 mail, after determining a deficiency./\ Actual receipt 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of the notice by the taxpayer is immaterial if the notice is mailed to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known address. See King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 679(9th Cir. 1988), aff'g, 88 T.C. 1042 (1987); Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 810 (1987); Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 52 (1983). The taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days (or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside of the United States) from the date the deficiency 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 notice is mailed to file a petition in this Court for a redetermination of the deficiency. Sec. 6213(a). A petition is timely if it is filed with this Court 4 within 90 days after the notice of deficiency is 5 mailed. Id. A petition that is timely mailed is 6 7 8 9 deemed to be timely filed. Sec. 7502. There is no dispute in this case that respondent mailed the deficiency notice to petitioner on May 14, 2012. The 90th day following the mailing 10 would have been August 2nd, 2012, which was not a 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday in the District of Columbia. Accordingly, the last day allowed by law to file a petition in this Court was August 2nd, 2012. See sec. 6213(a). The petition in this case was not filed with the Court until August 21, 2012. A petition may still be deemed timely filed if the date of the U.S. postmark stamped on the envelope in which the petition was mailed is within the time prescribed for filing. See sec. 7502(a). Here, the envelope containing the petition was dated August 16, 2012, which was 104 days after the mailing of the deficiency notice. Accordingly, the timely mailed, timely filed rule would not apply to petitioner. We hold that the petition in this 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 case was not timely filed pursuant to either section 6213(a) or section 7502. Accordingly, we shall grant respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the ground that the petition was not timely filed. An appropriate order will be issued granting respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 2:22 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