TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Charles Harris
Docket Number: 12075-08
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/10/2008
Pages: 11

COW UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 CHARLES HARRIS, Petitioner v . ) Docket No . 12075-08 . RV .; . . . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent S T:i . O R D E R 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 hearing of the above case before Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at Washington, D .C ., October 29, 2008, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the hearing . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an Order and Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction will be entered . (Signed ) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . November 10, 2008 SERVED N N 12 2008 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen Jr . 2 October 29, 200 8 3 Harris v . Commissioner Docket No . 12075-0 8 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the 6 following represents the Court's oral findings of fact 7 and opinion . 8 The oral findings of fact and opinion shall 9 not be relied upon as precedent in any other case . 10 This proceeding was heard as a regular case, 11 pursuant to the provisions of Section 7443A(b)(4) of the 12 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 180, 13 181, and 182 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice an d 14 Procedure . 15 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 16 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Interna l 17 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax 18 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 19 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, al l 20 section numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code, as 21 amended, and all Rule numbers refer to the Tax Court 22 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 23 Mark Cottrell appeared on behalf o f 24 Respondent . There was no appearance by or on behalf of 25 Petitioner . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 This case is before the Court on (1 ) 2 Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, 3 filed July 10, 2008, and supplemented July 11, 2008, and 4 October 3, 2008 ; and (2) Petitioner's Motion to Restrain 5 Assessment or Collection, filed May 19, 2008 . 6 Petitioner resided in the State of California 7 at the time that the petition was filed with the Court . 8 The facts relevant to the disposition of the 9 parties' motions are as follows : 10 Petitioner is employed and is subject to tax 11 withholding . See Davis v . Commissioner , TC Memo 2008- 12 238, for a discussion of the withholding system . 13 In 2008, Respondent sent Petitioner's 14 employer a so-called "Lock-In Letter" requiring a 15 prospective adjustment to (increase in) Petitioner's 16 withholding . See Davis v . Commissioner , TC Memo 2008- 17 238, for a discussion of the "Lock-In Letter" rationale 18 and procedure . 19 On May 19, 2008, Petitioner filed both a 20 petition and his Motion to Restrain Assessment and 21 Collection . 22 In the petition, Petitioner checked the box 23 indicating that he was disputing an IRS notice o f 24 determination concerning collection action . In tha t 25 regard, Petitioner referenced an IRS notice dated April Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 18, 2008, a partial copy of which was attached to th e 2 petition as the sole exhibit thereto . 3 The April 18, 2008, notice, which originated 4 out of the IRS Withholding Compliance Program a t 5 Respondent's service center, referenced Petitioner' s 6 employer, Waste Management of Alameda County, and began 7 as follows : 8 "Why are we writing to you? Based on the 9 additional information you gave us, we find that you r 10 response does not support a change to the marital status 11 and/or withholding allowances specified in our lette r 12 dated February 14, 2008 . 13 "What actions will be taken? Your employer 14 above must disregard any change to your marital status 15 and/or withholding allowances (or claim to complet e 16 exemption from withholding) and withhold income tax based 17 on the following status and allowances : Marital Status, 18 Single ; Withholding Allowances, zero . " 19 We return now to the petition itself . 20 Paragraphs 5 and 6, the sole substantive paragraphs of 21 the petition, contain allegations substantively identical 22 to those quoted in Davis v . Commissioner , TC Memo 2008- 23 238 . Those paragraphs need not therefore be repeate d 24 herein . 25 As previously mentioned, Petitioner filed Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 concurrently with the petition his Motion to Restrai n 2 Assessment and Collection . Petitioner's motion is solely 3 focused on Respondent's Lock-In Letter . The motion i s 4 essentially the same as the taxpayer's motion to restrain 5 that was before us in Davis . v . Commissioner , TC Memo 6 2008-238 . 7 In a nutshell, the motion seeks to restrain 8 Respondent's direction to Petitioner's employer t o 9 henceforth disregard the information on Petitioner's Form 10 W-4 (employee's withholding allowance certificate), and 11 instead withhold income tax based on a specified marital 12 status and a specified number of withholding allowances . 13 In response to the petition herein , 14 Respondent filed on July 10, 2008, his Motion to Dismiss 15 for Lack of Jurisdiction . In his motion, Responden t 16 moves that the instant case be dismissed for lack of 17 jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of 18 determination (see sections 6320(c) and 6330(c)) has been 19 issued to Petitioner, nor has Respondent made any other 20 determination that would confer jurisdiction on the 21 Court . 22 On July 11, 2008, Respondent filed a 23 supplement to his motion to dismiss . In the supplement, 24 Respondent reiterates that no notice of determination has 25 been sent to Petitioner ; but that, upon furthe r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 investigation, Respondent discovered that a notice of 2 deficiency had been sent to Petitioner on May 29, 2008, 3 determining deficiencies in, and additions to , 4 Petitioner's income taxes for 2003, 2005, and 2006, based 5 on Petitioner's failure to file returns and report hi s 6 wages and other income for those years . 7 Petitioner did not file any objection or 8 other response to Respondent's motion to dismiss, a s 9 supplemented, as directed by the Court in its order dated 10 July 17, 2008 . 11 On October 3, 2008, Respondent filed a second 12 supplement to his motion to dismiss . In his secon d 13 supplement, Respondent acknowledges that Petitione r 14 timely commenced an action for redetermination in this 15 Court at Docket No . 21161-08, in respect of Respondent's 16 deficiency determination embodied in the May 29, 2008, 17 notice of deficiency . 18 Respondent continues to represent that no 19 notice of determination has been sent to Petitioner . 20 Finally, Respondent represents that no 21 collection action, whether lien or levy, has been taken 22 against Petitioner for any of the taxable years 199 8 23 through 2007, inclusive . Specifically for the taxable 24 years 2003, 2005, and 2006, Respondent provide d O 25 transcripts of account (Form 434a demonstrating that no Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 assessment has been made, or any lien or levy action 2 taken, for any of those three years . 3 A hearing on the parties' motions was held in 4 Washington, D .C ., on October 29, 2008 . Counsel for 5 Respondent appeared and offered argument . In contrast, 6 there was no appearance by or on behalf of Petitioner, 7 nor did Petitioner file a written statement pursuant to 8 Rule 50(c), the provisions of which were noted by th e 9 Court in its order calendaring the parties' motions for 10 hearing . 11 Necessarily, we turn first to Respondent's 12 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction . 13 The Tax Court is a court of limite d 14 jurisdiction . See Section 7442 . Accordingly, we may 15 exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressl y 16 authorized by statute . Breman v . Commissioner , 66 TC 61, 17 66 (1976) . 18 In addition, jurisdiction must be proven 19 affirmatively, and a party invoking our jurisdiction 20 bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdictio n 21 over the party's case . See Fehrs v . Commissioner , 65 TC 22 346, 348 (1975) ; Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc . v . 23 24 Commissioner , 35 TC 177, 180 (1960) ; National Committee to Secure Justice, Etc . v . Commissioner , 27 TC 837, 839 25 (1957) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 In order to meet this burden, the party must 2 establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to ou r 3 jurisdiction . See Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc . v . 4 5 Commissioner , supra , at 180 ; Consolidated Company v . Commissioner , 15 BTA 645, 651 (1929) . 6 Lien or Levy (collection) action . In the 7 petition filed May 19, 2008, Petitioner characterizes his 8 case as a collection action, and he identifies th e 9 document in respect of which he is appealing as the IRS 10 notice dated April 18, 2008, regarding wage withholding . 11 In a collection action -- i .e ., a lien or 12 levy action -- this Court's jurisdiction under Sections 13 6320 and 6330 depends, in part, on the issuance of a 14 notice of determination by Respondent's Office of Appeals 15 after the taxpayer has requested a so-called collection 16 due process (CDP) hearing following the issuance b y 17 Respondent's collection division of either a final notice 18 of intent to levy, see Section 6330(a), or a notice o f 19 filing of federal tax lien, see Section 6320(a) . Se e 20 21 22 23 Sarrell v . Commissioner , 117 TC 122, 125 (2001) ; Moorhous v . Commissioner , 116 TC 263, 269 (2001) ; Offiler v . Commissioner , 114 TC 492, 498 (2000) ; see also Rule 330(b) . 24 In Davis v . Commissioner , TC Memo 2008-238, 25 the Court held that the Commissioner's "Lock-In Letter" Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 0 1 is not a collection action within the meaning of Section s 2 6320 and 6330 . Accordingly, the provisions of thos e 3 sections do not apply in the instanced case . This means 4 that Respondent was not obliged to, and therefore di d 5 not, issue any notice of determination . And lacking a 6 notice of determination, this Court is withou t 7 jurisdiction . 8 Petitioner's various arguments, as best they 9 can be gleaned from the petition, are no different than 10 those considered and rejected in Davis v . Commissioner , 11 TC Memo 2008-238 . 12 Deficiency Action . In an action for th e 13 redetermination of a deficiency, the Court's jurisdiction 14 under Section 6213(a) depends on the issuance by th e 15 Commissioner of a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer, 16 and the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer . 17 Frieling v . Commissioner , 81 TC 42, 46 (1983) ; Rule 18 13 (a) . 19 Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes the 20 Commissioner after determining a deficiency to send a 21 notice of deficiency to the taxpayer by certified o r 22 registered mail . The taxpayer then has 90 days from the 23 date that the notice of deficiency is mailed to file a 24 petition in this Court for a redetermination of th e 25 deficiency . Section 6213(a) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 In the present case, the petition was filed 2 with the Court before a notice of deficiency was issued 3 by Respondent . That being the case, the petition wa s 4 prematurely filed ; i .e ., the petition was not filed 5 within the statutory period . We therefore lac k 6 deficiency jurisdiction . See Benedict v . Commissioner , 7 1931 WL 5509 (BTA) . 1 1 r;q 8 Because we lack plenary jurisdiction, we lack 9 jurisdiction to enjoin . Section 6213(a), penultimat e 10 sentence, Davis v . Commissioner TC Memo 2008-238 . The 11 fact that Petitioner timely commenced an action fo r 12 redetermination in respect of the 13 May 29, 2008, notice of deficiency at another docket 14 (i .e ., Docket No . 21161-08) is irrelevant to ou r 15 jurisdiction in the instant case . 16 In view of the foregoing, we shall gran t 17 Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, 18 as supplemented . It necessarily follows that we must, 19 and we shall, deny Petitioner's Motion to Restrai n 20 Assessment or Collection . Davis v . Commissioner , TC Memo 21 2008-238 . 22 In conclusion, we hold that the Court lacks 23 jurisdiction in this case . Accordingly, we shall enter 24 an order and order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction 25 (1) granting Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 25 1 2 jurisdiction , filed July 10, 2008, and supplemented Jul y 11, 2008, and October 3 , 2008, and dismissing this cas e on the grounds that no notice of deficiency was sent t o Petitioner at the time that the petition herein was file d with the Court . And no notice of determination was sen t to Petitioner . And ( 2), denying Petitioner's Motion t o Restrain Assessment and Collection , filed May 19, 2008 . This concludes the Court ' s oral findings o f fact and opinion in this case . (Whereupon , at 12 :57 p .m ., the bench opinion in the above - entitled matter was concluded . ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888