TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Kailee Lynn Olson
Docket Number: 15737-14S
Judge: Armen
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/16/2015
Pages: 7

ALS UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 KAILEE LYNN OLSON, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 15737-14S. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 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 petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Special Trial Judge Robert N. Armen, Jr. at San Diego, California 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. October 16, 2015 (Signed) Robert N. Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judge SERVED Oct 16 2015 Capital Reporting Company 1 2 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N. Armen, Jr. Friday, October 2, 2015 3 Kailee Lynn Olson 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Docket No. 15737-14S I. THE CQURT: 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. THE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. See Rule 152(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice. and Procedure. II. This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Case pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal R'evenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. III. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company Hereinafter in this bench opinion, all section numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule numbers refer to the Tax Court 4 Rules of Practice and Procedure. IV. By notice dated and served April 29, 2015, this case was calendared for trial at the Court=s trial session beginning on September 28, 2015, in San Diego, California. On August 11, 2015, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that fËhe petition was not filed within the time prescribed by I.R.C. 6213(a) or 7502." Respondent attached to his motion a copy of a certified mail list as evidence of the fact that a notice of deficiency for 2012, the taxable year that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Petitioner seeks to place in issue, was sent to 17 Petitioner by certified mail on March 31, 2014. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Despite an Order by the Court directing Petitioner to file a response by September 3, 2015, Petitioner failed to do so. Because this Court may only hear and decide a case on the merits if it has jurisdiction, the threshold issue for decision is necessarily whether the petition in this case was timely filed. If it was not, then the law requires that the Court grant 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company Respondent=s motion and dismiss the case for lack of 5 jurisdiction. V. There was no appearance by or on behalf of 1 2 3 4 5 Petitioner. Nicole Beckley appeared on behalf of 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Respondent. VI. The facts necessary to a resolution of the jurisdictional issue are as follows: Petitioner resided in the State of California at the time that the petition was filed with the Court. In a notice of deficiency issued to Petitioner on March 31, 2014, Respondent determined a deficiency in Petitioner=s 2012 Federal income tax of $1,686. The notice of deficiency correctly stated that the last date to petition the Tax Court was June 30, 2014, which date was a Monday and not a legal holiday in the District of Columbia. See sec. 7503. 19 Petitioner filed a petition for redetermination and 20 21 22 23 24 25 attached thereto a copy of the notice of deficiency. The envelope containing the petition was sent by first-class mail bearing a clearly legible U.S. Postal Service postmark date of July 1, 2014, which was a Tuesday and 92 days after the notice of deficiency was mailed and one day after the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 expiration of the last day to petition the Court. See sec. 7503. The petition was received and filed by the Court on July 7, 2014, which was a Monday and 98 days after the notice of deficiency was mailed. Respondent=s motion was called from the calendar on Monday, September 28, 2015, and recalled on 7 Wednesday, September 30, 2015, for hearing. Counsel 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for Respondent appeared and presented argument. As previously indicated, there was no appearance by or on behalf of Petitioner on either day. VII. This Court=s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency 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, 147 (1988). Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes the Commissioner, after determining a deficiency, to send a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer by certified or registered mail. The taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days (or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States) to file a petition with this Court for a redetermination of the contested deficiency. See sec. 6213(a). By virtue of section 7502, a petition 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 that is timely mailed is deemed to be timely filed. As relevant herein, timely mailing is determined by the U.S. Postal Service postmark .date. See sec. 7502(a). Respondent mailed the notice of deficiency on 6 March 31, 2014. The time within which a petition 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 could be filed with the Court expired on June 30, 2014, which was a Monday and not a legal holiday in the District of Columbia. See sec. 7503. However, the envelope containing the petition bore a clearly legible U.S. Postal Service postmark date of July 1 2014. Thus, the petition was not filed within the 90-day period prescribed by section 6213 and therefore the petition was not timely filed. See secs. 6213, 7502. VIII. In view of the foregoing, an appropriate order shall be entered granting Respondent=s motion, filed August 11, 2015, and dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or 7502. IX. In closing we note that Petitioner may still be able to have her day in court (despite executing a 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 proposed decision document agreeing to the deficiency as determined) by paying the determined amount, filing a claim for refund, and then if the claim is denied (or not acted on within the statutory period) bringing a suit for refund in the appropriate Federal court. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 n.5 (1970); see also Weber v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 348, 366-367 (2012). X. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT=S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 9:24 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 2 4 25 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com