TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Larondah A. Jones
Docket Number: 16196-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/02/2008
Pages: 13

UNITED STATES TAX C6URT WASHINGTON , DC 20217 Docket No . 16196-07S . SERVIC E S .T . JUD O FILE S LARONDAH A . JONES, Petitione r V . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) Respondent O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice an d Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Cour to petitioner and to respondent a copy transcript of the hearing of the above Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at Chicago, 2008, containing his oral findings of at the conclusion of the hearing . t shall transmit herewith of the pages of th e case before Special Trial Illinois, on April 23,' act and opinion rendere d In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a n Order Of Dismissal For Lack Of Jurisdi tion will be entered . (Signed) Robert N. Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . June 2, 2008 SERVED JUN - 5 20 2 1 Bench Opinion by Special Tria Judge Robert N . Armen Jr . 2 April 23, 200 8 3 Jones v . Commissione r Docket No . 16196-07 S 4 I . 5 THE COURT : THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDE R 6 ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OP I ION IN THIS CASE, AN D 7 THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF 8 FACT AND OPINION . THE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND 9 OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN AN Y 10 OTHER CASE . 11 II, 12 This proceeding wa s heard as a Small Tax 13 Case, pursuant to the provisions of section 7463(f)(2) 14 of the Internal Revenue Code c~f 1986, as amended, and 15 Rules 170 through 175 of the ax Court Rules o f 16 Practice and Procedure . See and compare Rules 330 17 through 334 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 18 Procedure . 19 III . 20 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 21 authority granted by section ~459(b) of the Interna l 2 2 23 24 Revenue Code of 1986, as amen d ed, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and d Procedure . Hereinafter in thi s bench opinion, and 25 unless otherwise indicated, a l 1 section numbers refer Heritage Reporting (202) 628- Corporation 4888 3 1 to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule 2 numbers refer to the Tax Cour Rules of Practice and 3 Procedure . 4 5 IV . Karen Lynn Baker appeared on behalf o f 6 respondent . There was no app arance by or on behalf 7 of petitioner . 8 9 V . By Notice dated and served on petitioner by 10 certified mail on November 27 2007, this case wa s 11 calendared for trial on April 21, 2008, in Chicago, 12 Illinois . However, on Februa 6, 2008, respondent 13 filed a Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction . 14 Thereafter, on March 26, 2008 respondent supplemente d 15 his motion . 16 In the motion, res p ndent moves that this 17 case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the 18 ground that no notice of dete mination under section 19 6320 or 6330 was sent to peti Toner for 2001, the 20 taxable year in issue . 2 1 22 VI . Because this Court may only hear and decide 23 a case on the merits if the C urt has jurisdiction , 24 the threshold issue for decis ion is necessarily 25 whether the Court has jurisd i tion over 2001, the Heritage Reportin Corporation (202) 628-4888 10 1 taxable year that was placed in issue by petitioner i n 4 2 the petition . 3 VII . 4 The facts necessary to a resolution of 5 respondent's motion are as follows : 6 Petitioner filed he Federal income tax 7 return for 2001 on April 25, 003 . On her return, 8 petitioner listed her address as 12417 South Normal 9 Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60628 . We shal l 10 hereinafter refer to this address as the South Normal 11 Avenue address . 12 In 2004, respondent began an examination of 13 petitioner's 2001 return . In November 2004 , 14 respondent sent petitioner a 0-day letter proposing a 15 deficiency in tax of $18,166, an addition to tax under 16 section 6651(a)(1) for failur to timely file o f 17 $4,541 .50, and an accuracy-re ated penalty unde r 18 section 6662 of $3,633 .20 . T ereafter, on April 14, 19 2005, respondent sent petitio er a notice o f 20 deficiency based on the 30-da letter . 21 Respondent sent the notice of deficiency to 22 petitioner by certified mail ddressed to her at th e 23 South Normal Avenue address . However, the notice was 24 returned to respondent by the Postal Servic e 25 undelivered . The record does not disclose the reaso n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628+4888 5 1 why the Postal Service was un ble to deliver th e 2 notice, e .g ., because the notice went unclaimed by 3 petitioner or because petitio er had moved and any 4 forwarding address on file ha expired . 5 On August 29, 2005, respondent assessed th e 6 deficiency in tax, the additi n to tax, and th e 7 accuracy-related penalty, tog ther with statutory 8 interest . On that same date, respondent sen t 9 petitione r a statutory notice of balance due, i .e ., 10 notice and demand for payment See sec . 6303(a) . 11 Petitione r did not pay the am unt owing . 12 By Notice Number CP 504 dated June 11, 2007 , 13 respondent sent petitioner a ollection notice 14 summarizing her account balan e and asking fo r 15 payment . The notice specific illy advised petitioner 16 of the possibility that respo dent might levy on any 17 State tax refunds to which pe itioner might b e 18 entitled . Respondent mailed he notice to petitioner 19 by certified mail addressed t her in care of her tax 20 representative who, three mon hs earlier, ha d 21 requested audit reconsiderati n on her behalf i n 22 respect of respondent's defic iency determination fo r 23 2001 . (Parenthetically, we not that the request wa s 24 denied . ) 25 On July 18, 2007, Petitioner filed a Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628,1- 4888 6 1 petition with this Court . Opposite her signature o n 2 the petition, petitioner wrot the date "7-11-07 ." 3 The postmark on the envelope containing the petition 4 was rendered illegible by ir r diation . 5 Although the petiti on is styled as one for 6 redetermination of deficiency the only document 7 attached as an exhibit is the June 11, 2007, Notice 8 Number CP 504 . Indeed, in pa agraph 2 of the 9 petition, petitioner identif i d the IRS document from 10 which she was appealing as th notice dated June 11 , 11 2007 . 12 n the petition, p e titioner listed her 13 address as 9358 S . Kimbark St reet, Chicago, Illinois 14 60619 . We shall henceforth efer to this address as 15 the South Kimbark Street ad d ess . 16 As previously indic ated, respondent filed a 17 Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction on February 18 6, 2008 . The following day, the Court issued an Order 19 directing petitioner to file an objection or othe r 20 response to petitioner's moti on on or before March 10, 21 2008 . Petitioner failed to c omply with the Court' s 22 Order . 23 By Order dated March 21, 2008, the Cour t 24 calendared respondent's motion for hearing in Chicago, 25 Illinois, at a time and date certain . Heritage Reporting corporation (202) 628 1-4888 7 1 On March 26, 2008, re pondent filed a 2 Supplement to his motion to dis iss . 3 Pursuant to notice, t is case was calle d 4 from the calendar for hearing n respondent's motion, 5 as supplemented, on Tuesday, A ril 22, 2008, i n 6 Chicago, Illinois . Counsel fo respondent appeared 7 and argued in support of the m tion . In contrast , 8 there was no appearance by or n behalf of petitioner . 9 VIII . 10 The Tax Court is a c urt of limite d 11 jurisdiction . See sec . 7442 . Accordingly, we may 12 exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly 13 authorized by statute . Brema v . Commissioner, 6 6 14 T .C . 61, 66 (1976) . In addition, jurisdiction must be 15 proven affirmatively, and a p rty invoking ou r 16 jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have 17 jurisdiction over the party' s case . See Fehrs v . 18 Commissioner , 65 T .C . 346, 34 (1975) ; Wheeler' s 19 Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc . V . C mmissioner, 35 T .C . 177, 20 180 (1960) ; National Comm . to Secure Justice, Etc . v . 21 Commissioner , 27 T .C . 837, 839 (1957) . In order to 22 meet this burden, the party ust establis h 23 affirmatively all facts givi g rise to our 24 jurisdiction . See Wheeler's Peach Pharmacy, Inc . v . 25 Commissioner , supra at 180 ; onsolidated Co . v . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 620-4888 8 1 Commissioner , 15 B .T .A . 645, 65L (1929) . 2 The petition in the i stant case i s 3 ambiguous in that it is styled as a petition fo r 4 redetermination of deficiency, yet it represents an 5 appeal from a collection notic Indeed, the Cour t 6 classified the petition as one for lien or levy action 7 (collection action ) . Because f this ambiguity, w e 8 shall examine whether the Cou r has jurisdiction 9 either in the context of a def .; ciency action or in th e 10 context of a collection actio n 11 12 13 Deficiency Actio n Ix . In an action for the redetermination of a 14 deficiency, the Court's jurisd ction under sectio n 15 6213(a) depends on the issuanc by the Commissioner of 16 a notice of deficiency to the axpayer and the timely 17 filing of a petition by the to payer . Frieling v . 18 Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 4 6 983) ; Rule 13 (a) . 19 Section 6212(a) expressly auth rizes the Commissione r 20 after determining a deficiencyl, to send a notice o f 21 deficiency to the taxpayer by certified or registered 22 mail . It is sufficient for j risdictional purposes if 23 respondent mails the notice o deficiency to th e 24 taxpayer at the taxpayer's "1 st known address ." Sec . 25 6212(b) ; Frieling v . Commissioner, supra at 52 . If a Heritage Reportin Corporatio n (202) 628- 9 1 notice of deficiency is maile d o the taxpayer at the 2 taxpayer's last known address, actual receipt of the 3 notice is immaterial . King v .~Commissioner , 857 F .2 d 4 5 6 7 8 9 676, 679 (9th Cir . 1988), affg . 88 T .C . 1042 (1987) ; Yusko v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 806, 810 (1987) ; Frieling v . Commissioner , supr at 52 . The taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days from the ate that the notice of deficiency is mailed to file a petition in this Court for a redetermination of the d ficiency . Sec . 10 6213(a) . A petition that is timely mailed is deeme d 11 to be timely filed . 12 It is clear in the present case tha t 1 3 14 15 respondent mailed the notice f deficiency t o petitioner on April 14, 2005 . See Magazine v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 321, 3 2 n . 8 (1987), holding 16 that Postal Service Form 3877 , or its equivalent, 17 represents direct evidence o f the date of mailing of 18 the notice of deficiency . Th refore, the 90-da y 19 period within which petitione was required to file 20 her petition with the Court e pired on Wednesday, July 21 13, 2005 . However, petitione did not file a petitio n 22 with this Court until July 18, 2007, a date well after 23 the expiration of the critical 90-day period . The 24 postmark appearing on the envelope containing the 25 petition is illegible, and without evidence fro m Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 0 1 petitioner, which is lacking, w e shall not presume 2 that the envelope was posted i a timely manner , 3 particularly in view of the fac t that petitioner dated 4 the petition "7-11-07 ." Under these circumstances, 5 the petition was not timely fil ed, and the Court would 6 lack jurisdiction to redetermi e petitioner' s 7 liability for the deficiency f r the taxable year i n 8 issue . 9 In so concluding, we recognize that the 10 address to which the notice o f deficiency was mailed, 11 i .e ., the South Normal Avenu e ddress, does not match 12 petitioner's address as liste d on the petition, i .e ., 13 the South Kimbark Street addr e s . However, th e 14 address to which the notice w a mailed was the address 15 listed by petitioner on her re urn for the year i n 16 issue . 17 Although the phrase last known address" i s 18 not defined in the Internal R e enue Code, we have held 19 that absent clear and concis e otice of a change o f 20 address, a taxpayer's last kn o address is the 21 address shown on the taxpaye r return that was most 22 recently filed at the time th a the notice was issued . 23 Abeles v . Commissioner , 91 T .C 1019, 1035 (1988) . 24 See sec . 301 .6212-2, Proced . & (Admin . Regs . 25 Although petitioner listed the South Kimbark Heritage ReportinglCorporation (202) 628-4888 11 1 Street address on her income to returns for 2002, 2 2003, and 2004, she did not fi l those returns unti l 3 after respondent had mailed th notice of deficienc y 4 for 2001 . Thus, in the absenc of any evidence that 5 petitioner had provided clear d concise notice of a 6 change of address, we conclud e that the South Norma l 7 Avenue address was petitione r last known address at 8 the time that the notice of de iciency was mailed an d 9 that the notice of deficienc y as therefore valid . 10 See Yusko v . Commissioner , 89 . 806, 808 (1987) , 11 holding that the taxpayer bea r the burden of proving 12 that the notice of deficiency as not mailed to his o r 13 her last known address . 14 In view of the foregoing, we hold that th e 15 petition, if viewed as one f 16 a deficiency, was not timel y 17 therefore be dismissed for la 18 X . 19 20 Lien or Levy Action In a collection review action, i .e ., a lie n 21 or levy action, this Court's 'urisdiction under 22 sections 6320 and 6330 depend , in part, on the 23 issuance of a notice of dete ination by respondent's 24 Office of Appeals after the taxpayer has requested an 25 administrative hearing follo ing the issuance by Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 1 respondent's collection divisio of either a final 2 notice of intent to levy, see ec . 6330(a), or a 3 notice of filing of Federal to lien, see sec . 4 6320(a) . See Sarrell v . Commi sioner, 117 T .C . 122, 5 125 (2001) ; Moorhous v . Commis ioner, 116 T .C . 263 , 6 269 (2001) ; Offiler v . Commiss oner, 114 T .C . 492, 49 8 7 (2000) ; see also Rule 330(b) . 8 In the present case, the only collection- 9 related document that was sent by respondent was th e 10 Notice Number CP 504 dated Ju 11, 2007 . However, 11 that document is not a notice of determination within 12 the meaning of section 6320 o section 6330 . Thus, an 13 appeal from that document wou d not confe r 14 jurisdiction on this Court . 15 In view of the foregoing, we hold that the 16 petition, if viewed as one fo lien or levy action 17 (collection action), should b dismissed for lack of 18 jurisdiction because no notic of determination was 19 sent to petitioner by respond nt's Office of Appeals . 20 XI . 21 In sum, we shall g ant respondent's Motion 22 To Dismiss For Lack Of Juris iction, filed February 6, 23 2008, and supplemented March 26, 2008, and dismis s 24 this case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that, 25 if viewed as an action for redetermination, th e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 14 15 1 6 17 1 8 19 2 0 2 1 22 2 3 2 4 25 petition was not timely filed and, if viewed as a lie n or levy action (collection action), no showing ha s been made that any notice of d termination was issue d 1 3 -for 2001, the taxable year in ssue . XII . THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS O F FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . (Whereupon, at 2 :15 .m ., the bench opinio n in the above-entitled matter as concluded . ) / / // . -/ / / / Heritage Reportiig Corporation (202) 628-4888