TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Jessica Castro
Docket Number: 13029-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/30/2008
Pages: 10

RECORDFD SERVIC E STAT . FILE S UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 JESSICA CASTRO, Petitioner v . ) Docket No . 13029-07S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s 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 Chicago, Illinois, on April 23, 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 Of Dismissal For Lack Of Jurisdiction will be entered . (Signed) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . May 30, 2008 SERVED JUN - 2 2008 2 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen Jr . 2 April 23, 200 8 3 Castro v . Commissioner Docket No . 13029-07S 4 I . 5 THE COURT : THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER 6 ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION 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 ANY 10 OTHER CASE . 11 II . 12 This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax 13 Case, pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of 14 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and 15 Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules o f 16 Practice and Procedure . 17 III . 18 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 19 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 20 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 21 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 22 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, an d 23 unless indicated otherwise, all section numbers refer 24 to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule 25 numbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice an d Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 Procedure . 2 IV . 3 Jason Anderson appeared on behalf o f 4 respondent . There was no appearance by or on behalf 5 of petitioner . 6 V . 7 By Notice dated and served on petitioner by 8 certified mail on November 27, 2007, this case wa s 9 calendared for trial on April 21, 2008, in Chicago, 10 Illinois . However, on March 28, 2008, responden t 11 filed a Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction, a 12 copy of which was served by respondent on petitioner 13 by mail on March 27, 2008 . In his motion, respondent 14 contends that this case should be dismissed on th e 15 ground that the petition was not filed within the tim e 16 prescribed by section 613(a) or section 7502 . 17 By Order dated April 2, 2008, and served on 18 petitioner by certified mail on the following day, the 19 Court calendared respondent's motion for hearing o n 20 April 21, 2008, in Chicago, Illinois . 21 Pursuant to notice, this case was calle d 22 from calendar on April 21, 2008, in Chicago, Illinois . 23 Counsel for respondent appeared . In contrast, there 24 was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner . 25 Later that day, this case was recalled from the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 calendar . Again, there was no appearance by or o n 2 behalf of petitioner . Counsel for respondent appeared 4 3 and argued in support of his motion . 4 VI . 5 Because this Court may only hear and decide 6 a case on the merits if the Court has jurisdiction , 7 the threshold issue for decision is necessaril y 8 whether Jessica Castro ( petitioner) filed her petition 9 for redetermination of deficiency within the 90-da y 10 period prescribed by sections 6213(a) and 7502 . 11 VII . 12 The facts necessary to a resolution of the 13 jurisdictional issue are as follows : 14 On October 18, 2006, respondent mailed 15 duplicate original notices of deficiency t o 16 petitioner . In the notice, respondent determined a 17 deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for the 18 taxable year 2004 in the amount of $2,710 . 19 The notice was sent to petitioner b y 20 certified mail addressed to her at 103 South Testa 21 Drive, Apt . 201, Naperville, IL 60540 . We shall 22 hereinafter refer to this address as the Napervill e 23 address . A duplicate original notice was also sent to 24 petitioner by certified mail addressed to her at 3911 25 North Christiana Avenue, Chicago, IL 60618 . We shall Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 hereinafter refer to this address as the Chicago 2 address . 3 The first page of the notice of deficiency 4 states as follows : "Last Day to File a Petition with 5 the United States Tax Court : January 16, 2007 . " 6 On June 5, 2007, petitioner filed an 7 imperfect petition with this Court seeking a 8 redetermination of the deficiency determined b y 9 respondent in the notice of deficiency . The petition 10 arrived at the Court by regular first-class mail in an 11 envelope bearing a United States Postal Servic e 12 postmark date of May 30, 2007 . 13 Petitioner did not list her address in the 14 imperfect petition, but provided only her cell phone 15 number . The address appearing on the envelope i n 16 which the petition was mailed to the Court is 3906 N . 17 Washington, Westmont, IL 60559 . We shall hereinafter 18 refer to this address as the Westmont address . 19 As an exhibit to her imperfect petition , 20 petitioner attached a copy of the notice of deficiency 21 that had been sent to her at the Naperville address . 22 The second sentence of petitioner's four- 23 sentence imperfect petition states as follows : "I 24 have moved several times in the last 3 years a [sic] 25 missed several letters . " Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 As indicated, respondent filed a Motion To 2 Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction on March 28, 2008 . 3 In the motion, respondent contends that dismissal for 4 lack of jurisdiction is required because petitione r 5 failed to file a timely petition . 6 VIII . 7 This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a 8 deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance of a 9 valid notice of deficiency and a timely-file d 10 petition . Monge v . Commissioner , 93 T .C . 22, 2 7 11 (1989) ; Normac, Inc . v . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 142, 147 12 (1988) ; Rule 13(a), (c) . Section 6212(a) expressly 13 authorizes respondent, after determining a deficiency, 14 to send a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer b y 15 certified or registered mail . It is sufficient fo r 16 jurisdictional purposes if respondent mails the notice 17 of deficiency to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's "last 18 known address ." Sec . 6212(b) ; Frieling v . 19 Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 52 (1983) . Indeed, If the 20 notice is mailed to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's 21 last known address, actual receipt of the notice by 22 the taxpayer is immaterial . See King v . Commissioner , 23 857 F .2d 676, 679 (9th Cir . 1988), affg . 88 T .C . 1042 24 (1987) ; Yusko v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 806, 81 0 25 (1987) ; Frieling v . Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 52 Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 (1983) . The taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days, or 150 2 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside 3 the United States, from the date the notice o f 4 deficiency is mailed to file a petition in this Court 5 for a redetermination of the contested deficiency . 6 Sec . 6213(a) . By virtue of section 7502, a petition 7 that is timely mailed is deemed to be timely filed . 8 It is clear in the present case tha t 9 respondent mailed duplicate original notices o f 10 deficiency to petitioner on October 18, 2006 . See 11 Magazine v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 321, 327 n . 8 12 (1987), holding that Postal Service Form 3877, or its 13 equivalent, represents direct evidence of the date of 14 mailing of the notice of deficiency . Therefore, the 15 90-day period within which petitioner was required to 16 file her petition with this Court expired on Tuesday, 17 January 16, 2007 . However, petitioner did not file a 18 petition for redetermination with this Court unti l 19 June 5, 2007, a date well after the expiration of the 20 critical 90-day period . Moreover, the petition 21 arrived at the Court in an envelope bearing a U .S . 22 Postal Service postmark date of May 30, 2007, onc e 23 again a date well after the expiration of the critical 24 90-day period . Under these circumstances, respondent 25 contends that the petition was not timely filed an d Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 that the Court lacks jurisdiction to redetermine 2 petitioner's liability for the deficiency for the 3 taxable year in issue . 4 IX . 5 The defense most commonly asserted b y 6 taxpayers in cases such as the present one is that a 7 particular notice of deficiency was not mailed to the 8 taxpayer at the taxpayers's last known address and is 9 therefore invalid . Conceivably, this defense might , 10 perhaps, be applicable in the present case given the 11 fact that the noticed of deficiency w& mailed to 12 petitioner at the Naperville and Chicago addresses , 13 whereas petitioner's current address appears to be the 14 Westmont address . In addition, petitioner alleges in 15 her imperfect petition that she has "moved severa l 16 times in the last 3 years a (sic] missed several 17 letters . " 18 Although the phrase "last known address" is 19 not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, we have held 20 that absent clear and concise notice of a change o f 21 address, a taxpayer's last known address is th e 22 address shown on the taxpayer's return that was most 23 recently filed at the time that the notice was issued . 24 Abeles v . Commissioner , 91 T .C . 1019, 1035 (1988) . 25 See sec . 301 .6212-2, Proced . & Admin . Regs . We have Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 9 1 also held that the taxpayer bears the burden o f 2 proving that the notice of deficiency was not mailed 3 to his or her last known address . Yusko v . 4 Commissioner , 89 T .C . 806, 808 (1987) . 5 There is nothing in the instant case tha t 6 would support a finding that the notice of deficiency 7 was not sent to petitioner at her last known address . 8 In addition, petitioner has not even raised the issue 9 and, as just mentioned, it would be her burden t o 10 demonstratethe notice was not mailed to her at her 11 last known address . In contrast, the record doe s 12 demonstrate that the notice sent to petitioner at the 13 Naperville address was received by her, as a copy was 14 attached to the petition as an exhibit . Accordingly, 15 we shall not belabor the matter but rather proceed on 16 the basis that respondent issued a valid notice o f 17 deficiency . 18 X . 19 In view of the foregoing , we hold that the 20 petition in this case was not timely filed pursuant to 21 either section 6?3( a) or section 7502 . Accordingly, 22 we shall grant respondent ' s Motion To Dismiss For Lack 23 Of Jurisdiction, filed March 28, 2008, and we shal l 24 dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on the 25 ground that the petition was not timely filed . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 0 1 XI . 2 Finally, a postscript . 3 Although petitioner cannot pursue a case in 4 this Court, petitioner is not without a judicia l 5 remedy . Thus, petitioner may pay the determine d 6 liability, file a claim for refund with the Internal 7 Revenue Service, and, if the claim is denied, sue for 8 a refund in the appropriate Federal district court or 9 the United States Court of Federal Claims . Se e 10 McCormick v . Commissioner , 55 T .C . 138, 142 n . 5 11 (1970) . In this regard, we understand that petitioner 12 may already have taken the first step by paying th e 13 determined deficiency . 14 XII . 15 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS O F 16 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . 17 (Whereupon, at 2 :50 p .m ., the bench opinion 18 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 19 // 2 0 21 22 23 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888