TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Ronald F. Siggens
Docket Number: 14150-09S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/06/2009
Pages: 9

PA- UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 RONALD F . SIGGENS, Petitione r v . ) Docket No . 14150-09S . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent 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 Boston, Massachusetts, on September 23, 2009, 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 Of Dismissal For Lack Of Jurisdiction will~be entered . (Signed ) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . October 6, 2009 . .SERVED OCT -7 2009 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . 2 September 23, 2009 Docket No . 14150-09S 3 Ronald F . Siggens v . Commissione r 4 I . 5 The Court has decided to render oral findings of 6 fact and opinion in this case, and the following represents 7 the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . The ora l 8 findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as 9 precedent in any other case . 10 II . 11 This proceeding was heard as a small tax cas e 12 pursuant to the provisions of Section 7463 of the Internal 13 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 14 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 15 III . 16 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 17 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue 18 Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Cour t 19 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 20 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, and unless 21 otherwise indicated, all section numbers refer to the 22 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and all rule 23 numbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 24 Procedure . 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 IV . 2 Patrick F . Gallagher appeared on behalf o f 3 Respondent . There was no appearance by or on behalf of 4 Petitioner 5 V . 6 On July 27, 2009, Respondent filed a motion t o 7 dismiss for lack of jurisdiction . In his motion, Respondent 8 contends that this case should be dismissed on the groun d 9 that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed 10 by Section 6213(a) or Section 7502 . 11 VI . 12 Pursuant to notice, this case was called for a 13 hearing on Respondent's motion in Boston, Massachusetts, on 14 September 23, 2009 . 15 VII . 16 The facts necessary to a resolution of the 17 jurisdictional issue are as follows : 18 On March 10, 2009, Respondent mailed a notice of 19 deficiency to Petitioner . In the notice, Responden t 20 determined a deficiency in Petitioner's federal income tax 21 for the taxable year 2006 in the amount of $11,710 . 22 The notice was sent to Petitioner by certified 23 mail addressed to him at 126 Albion Street, Apt . #2 , 24 Somerville, Massachusetts 02144-2645 . For the sake o f 25 convenience, we shall hereinafter refer to this address as Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 11 5 1 the Albion Street address . 2 The first page of the notice of deficiency states 3 as follows : "Last Day To File a Petition with the Unite d 4 States Tax Court : June 8, 2009 . " 5 On Wednesday, June 10, 2009, Petitioner filed a 6 petition with this Court seeking a redetermination of the 7 deficiency determined by Respondent in the notice o f 8 deficiency . The petition arrived at the Court by Express 9 Mail from the United States Postal Service on Wednesday, 10 June 10, 2009 . 11 The Express Mail envelope in which the petition 12 was mailed bears a private postmeter postage label, dated 13 Saturday, June 6, 2009, and a ZIP code of 01824 . However, 14 in stark contrast, the Express Mail mailing label that is 15 affixed to the Express Mail envelope bears notation s 16 indicating that the envelope was accepted by the Postal 17 Service at 6 p .m . on Tuesday, June 9, 2009, for next-day 18 delivery by noon . (As previously indicated, the envelop e 19 was received by the Court on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 .) The 20 Express Mail mailing label also bears a notation indicating 21 that the ZIP code of origin was 01889 . 22 The address appearing on the petition is th e 23 Albion Street address, i .e ., the same address to which the 24 notice of deficiency was sent . 25 As indicated, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 for lack of jurisdiction on July 27, 2009 . In the motion, 2 Respondent contends that dismissal for lack of jurisdiction 3 is required because Petitioner failed to file a timel y 6 4 petition . 5 VIII . 6 This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a 7 deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance of a valid 8 notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition . Monge v . 9 Commissioner , 93 T .C . 22, 27 (1989) ; Normac, Inc . v . 10 Commissioner , 90 T .C . 142, 147 (1988) ; Rule 13(a), (c) . 11 Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes Respondent, afte r 12 determining a deficiency, to send a notice of deficiency to 13 the taxpayer by certified or registered mail . It i s 14 sufficient for jurisdictional purposes if Respondent mails 15 the notice of deficiency to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's 16 "last known address ." Sec . 6212(b) ; Frieling v . 17 Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 52 (1983) . Indeed, if the notice 18 is mailed to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's last know n 19 address, actual receipt of the notice by the taxpayer is 20 immaterial . See King v . Commissioner , 857 F .2d 676, 679 21 (9th Cir . 1988), affg . 88 T .C . 1042 (1987) ; Yusko v . 22 23 Commissioner , 89 T .C . 806, 810 (1987) ; Frieling v . Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 52 (1983) . The taxpayer, in turn, 24 has 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a 25 person outside the United States, from the date the notice Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 of deficiency is mailed to file a petition in this Court for 2 a redetermination of the contested deficiency . Sec . 3 6213 ( a) . By virtue of Section 7502, a petition that is 4 timely mailed is deemed to be timely filed . 5 It is clear in the present case that Respondent mailed the notice of deficiency to Petitioner on March 10 , 7 2009 . See Magazine v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 321, 327 n .8 8 (1987 ), holding that Postal Service Form 3877, or it s 9 equivalent , represents direct evidence of the date o f 10 mailing of the notice of deficiency . Therefore, the 90-day 11 period within which Petitioner was required to file hi s 12 petition with the Court expired on Monday, June 8, 2009 . 13 However , Petitioner did not file a petition for 14 redetermination with this Court until Wednesday, June .2.0' ll 15 1009, a date after the expiration of the critical 90-day 16 period . 17 Although the private postmeter postage label 18 affixed to the Express Mail envelope lists a date o f 19 Saturday , June 6, 2009 , the mailing label indicates that the 20 envelope was only accepted by the Postal Service at 6 p .m . 21 on Tuesday, June 9, 2009 . ( Moreover, the private postmeter 22 postage label shows a ZIP code of 01824, whereas the mailing 23 label shows the ZIP code of origin as 01889 . ) The track- 24 and- confirm feature at the Postal Service's website als o 25 demonstrates that the Postal Service did not take possession Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 of the envelope in question until the afternoon of Tuesday, 2 June 9, 2009 . Under these circumstances, Responden t 3 contends that the petition was not timely filed and that the 4 Court lacks jurisdiction to redetermine Petitioner' s 5 liability for the deficiency for the taxable year in issue . 6 IX . 7 The defense most commonly asserted by taxpayers in 8 cases such as the present one is that a particular notice of 9 deficiency was not mailed to the taxpayer at the taxpayer' s 10 last known address and is, therefore, invalid . However, 11 this defense has not been raised in the present case, and 12 the record suggests that any such defense would b e 13 unavailing, given the fact that Petitioner had the sam e 14 address at the time when the notice of deficiency was mailed 15 and when the petition was filed . Thus, there is no reason 16 to belabor the matter, and we proceed on the basis tha t 17 Respondent issued a valid notice of deficiency . 18 X . 19 In his objection filed August 20, 2009, Petitioner 20 "agrees with the facts outlined in the Motion To Dismiss ." 21 Nevertheless, Petitioner objects to the granting o f 22 Respondent's motion, but, citing only Rule 54, on the sole 23 ground that "motions must be made timely ." However, the law 24 is clear that the Court's jurisdiction is fundamental an d 25 may be challenged at any time by either party or, sua Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 9 1 sponte, by the Court itself . E .g ., Estate of Young v . 2 Commissioner 81 T .C . 879, 880-881 (1983) . Nothing in Rule 3 54 negates that basic principle . 4 The record indicates that the envelope in whic h 5 the petition was mailed to the Court was not handed over to 6 the Postal Service for mailing until Tuesday, June 9, 2009 . 7 That being the case, and notwithstanding the privat e 8 postmeter postage label, we may only conclude that the 9 petition was not timely mailed . 10 XI . 11 In view of the foregoing, we hold that the 12 petition was not filed within the time prescribed by Section 13 6213(a) or Section 7502 . Accordingly, we shall gran t 14 Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction , 15 filed July 27, 2009, and we shall dismiss this case for lack 16 of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was no t 17 timely filed . 18 XII . 19 Finally, a postscript . 20 Although Petitioner cannot pursue a case in this 21 Court, he is not without a judicial remedy . Thus , 22 Petitioner may pay the determined liability, file a claim 23 for refund with the Internal Revenue Service, and, if th e 24 claim is denied, sue for a refund in the appropriate Federal 25 district court or the United States Court of Federal Claims . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 10 1 See McCormick v . Commissioner , 55 T .C . 138, 142 n .5 (1970) . 2 XIII . 3 This concludes the Court ' s oral findings of fact 4 and opinion in this case . 5 (Whereupon , at 2 :02 p .m ., the bench opinion in the 6 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888