TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Deborah Ghani
Docket Number: 19615-08
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/27/2009
Pages: 10

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 DEBORAH GHANI, Petitione r V . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent O R D E R Docket No . 19615-08 . CAL . STA". . 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 Washington, D .C ., on February 11, 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 And Order Of Dismissal For Lack Of Jurisdiction will be entered . (Signed) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . February 27, 2009 SERVED MAR - 6 2009 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen Jr . 2 February 11, 200 9 3 Deborah Ghani v . Commissione r Docket No . 19615-0 8 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render ora l 5 findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following 6 represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . 7 The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied 8 upon as precedent in any other case . nanr(cid:127)n nni ni o n . , , + t-e -t-he B+3 c a E-LIQ- r) 10 1 1 12 13 This proceeding was heard as a regular cas e 14 pursuant to the provisions of Section 7443A(b)(4) of the 15 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 180, 16 181, and 182 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice an d 17 Procedure . 18 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 19 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue 20 Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Cour t 21 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 22 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, all sectio n 23 numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and 24 all rule numbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice 25 and Procedure . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 Karen Briscoe appeared on behalf of Respondent . 2 There was no appearance by or on behalf of Petitioner . 3 This case is before the Court on (1) Respondent's 4 Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed August 29, 5 2008, and supplemented November 14, 2008 ; and (2 ) 6 Petitioner's Motion To Restrain Assessment, filed August 11, 7 2008 . 8 Petitioner resided in the State of Colorado at the 9 time that the petition was filed with the Court . 10 The facts relevant to the disposition of the 11 parties' motions are as follows : 12 Petitioner is employed and is subject to income 13 tax withholding at the source on wages . See Davis v . 14 Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2008-238, for a discussion of the 15 withholding system . 16 In 2008, Respondent sent Petitioner's employer a 17 so-called "Lock-in Letter" requiring a prospectiv e 18 adjustment to (increase in) Petitioner's withholding . See 19 Davis v . Commissioner , supra , for a discussion of the Lock- '20 in Letter rationale and procedure . 21 On August 11, 2008, Petitioner filed both a 22 petition and her Motion To Restrain Assessment . 23 In the petition, Petitioner checked the box 24 indicating that she was disputing an IRS notice o f 25 determination concerning collection action . In that regard, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 It 5 1 Petitioner referenced an IRS notice, dated January 3, 2008, 2 a copy of which was attached to the petition as the sol e 3 exhibit thereto . 4 The January 3, 2008, notice, which originated out 5 of the IRS Withholding Compliance Program at Respondent' s 6 service center, referenced Petitioner's employer, Ultra 7 Resources Inc ., and stated in part as follows : 8 "WHY ARE WE WRITING TO YOU ? 9 * * * We have determined that you are not entitled 10 to claim a complete exemption from withholding or 11 more than a specified number of withholding 12 allowances . 13 WHAT INSTRUCTIONS DID WE GIVE YOUR EMPLOYERS? 14 We instructed your employers to disregard th e 15 marital status and/or withholding allowances (or 16 claim of complete exemption from withholding ) 17 shown on tur Form W-4 and withhold income tax from 18 your wages based on the following marital status 19 and withholding allowances : 20 Marital Status : Singl e 21 Withholding allowances : 00 . 22 In addition, we have instructed your employers not 23 to honor your current Form W-4, or a new Form W- 4 24 from you, unless the status and/or allowances you 25 claim result in MORE withholding than at the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 status and allowances shown above . " 2 We return now to the petition itself . Paragraphs 3 5 and 6, the sole substantive paragraphs of the petition , 4 contain allegations substantively identical to those quoted 5 in Davis v . Commissioner , supra . Those paragraphs need not, 6 therefore, be repeated herein . 7 As previously mentioned, Petitioner filed 8 concurrently with the petition her Motion To Restrain 9 Assessment . Petitioner's motion is solely focused o n 10 Respondent's Lock-in Letter . The motion is essentially the 11 same as the taxpayer's motion to restrain that was before us 12 in Davis v . Commissioner , supra . In a nutshell, the motion 13 seeks to restrain Respondent's direction to Petitioner' s 14 employer to henceforth disregard the information o n 15 Petitioner's Form W-4 (Employee's Withholding Allowance 16 Certificate) and, instead, withhold income tax based on a 17 specified martial status and a specified number o f 18 withholding allowances . 19 In response to the petition herein, Responden t 20 filed, on August 29, 2008, his Motion To Dismiss for Lack of 21 Jurisdiction . In his motion, Respondent moves that th e 22 instant case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the 23 ground that, as now relevant, no notice of determination 24, (see Secs . 6320(c) and 6330(c)) has been issued t o 25 Petitioner . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 On October 9, 2008, Petitioner filed an objectio n 2 to Respondent's motion . In her objection, which i s 3 essentially the same as that filed by the taxpayer in Davis 4 v . Commissioner , supra , Petitioner appears to admit tha t 5 Respondent has not sent her any notice of determination . 6 A hearing on the parties' motions was held i n 7 Washington, D .C ., on October 29, 2008 . A further hearing on 8 the parties' motions was held in Washington, D .C ., on 9 February 11, 2009 . Counsel for Respondent appeared an d 10 offered argument at both hearings . In contrast, there was 11 no appearance by or on behalf of Petitioner at eithe r 12 hearing ; however, on October 27, 2008, Petitioner filed a 13 written statement in lieu of appearance . See Rule 50(c) . 14 On November 14, 2008, between the tw o 15 aforementioned hearings, Respondent filed a supplement to 16 his motion to dismiss . Thereafter, on December 16, 2008, 17 Petitioner filed an objection to Respondent's supplement . 18 Necessarily, we turn first to Respondent's Motion 19 To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, as supplemented . 20 The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction . 21 See Sec . 7442 . Accordingly, we may exercise jurisdiction 22 only to the extent expressly authorized by statute . Breman 23 v . Commissioner , 66 T .C . 61, 66 (1976) . In addition , 24 jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a party 25 invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 we have jurisdiction over the party's case . See Fehrs v . 2 3 4 Commissioner , 65 T .C . 346, 348 (1975) ; Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc . v . Commissioner , 35 T .C . 177, 180 (1960) ; National Comm . to Secure Justice, Etc . v . Commissioner , 27 5 T .C . 837, 839 (1957) . In order to meet this burden, th e 6 party must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to 7 our jurisdiction . See Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc . v . 8 9 10 Commissioner , supra at 180 ; Consolidated Co . v . Commissioner , 15 B .T .A . 645, 651 (1929) . Lien or Levy (Collection) Action . In the petition 11 filed August 11, 2008, Petitioner characterizes her case as 12 a collection action, and she identifies the document, i n 13 respect of which she is appealing, as the IRS notice, dated 14 January 3, 2008, regarding wage withholding . 15 In a collection action, i .e ., a lien or levy 16 action, this Court's jurisdiction, under Sections 6320 and 17 6330, depends, in part, on the issuance of a notice o f 18 determination by Respondent's Office of Appeals after the 19 taxpayer has requested a so-called "collection due process 20 (CDP) hearing" following the issuance by Respondent' s 21 Collection Division of either a final notice of intent t o 22 levy, see Sec . 6330(a), or a notice of filing of Federal tax 23 lien, see Sec . 6320(a) . See Sarrell v . Commissioner , 11 7 24 T .C . 122, 125 (2001) ; Moorhous v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 25 263, 269 (2001) ; Offiler v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 492, 498 Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (2000) ; see also Rule 330(b) . In Davis v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2008-238, the Court held that the Commissioner's Lock-in Letter is not a collection action within the meaning of Sections 6320 an d 6330 . Accordingly, the provisions of those sections do no t apply in the instant case . This means that Respondent wa s not obliged to, and, therefore, did not, issue any notice o f determination . And lacking a notice of determination, thi s Court is without jurisdiction . We need not discuss Petitioner's variou s arguments, for they are no different than those considered , and rejected, in Davis v . Commissioner , supra . For the sake of completeness, and inasmuch a s Respondent's motion, as supplemented, demonstrates tha t notices of deficiency were sent to Petitioner for 2003 and 2004 on August 1, 2006, and for 2005 on October 9, 2007, w e shall briefly discuss the jurisdictional requirements for a n action for redetermination of deficiency . In an action for the redetermination of a deficiency, the Court's jurisdiction under Section 6213(a ) depends on the issuance by the Commissioner of a notice o f deficiency to the taxpayer and the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer . Frieling v . Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 46 (1983) ; Rule 13(a) . Thus, Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes th e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 0 1 Commissioner, after determining a deficiency, to send a 2 notice of deficiency to the taxpayer by certified o r 3 registered mail . The taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days, or 150 4 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside th e 5 United States, from the date the notice of deficiency is 6 mailed to file a petition in this-Court for a 7 redetermination of the contested deficiency . Sec . 6213(a) . 8 In the context of an action for redetermination of 9 deficiency, this Court has no authority to restrai n 10 assessment or collection unless a timely petition for a 11 redetermination of the deficiency has been filed and then 12 only in respect of the deficiency that is the subject of 13 such petition . See Sec . 6213(a), penultimate sentence . 14 The petition in the instant case makes plain that 15 Petitioner did not intend to commence an action fo r 16 redetermination . But even if Petitioner did so intend, the 17 petition was not timely filed . Yet, even if it were, the 18 subject deficiencies were for 2003, 2004, and 2005, and not 19 for the year for which Respondent's Lock-in Letter was first 20 effective . Further, tax withholding is not a deficiency 21 within the meaning of Section 6211(a) . 22 In short, this Court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin 23 what Petitioner seeks us to enjoin . Davis v . Commissioner , 24 supra . 25 In view of the foregoing, we shall grant Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 11 1 Respondent ' s Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, a s 2 supplemented . It necessarily follows that we must, and we 3 shall, deny Petitioner ' s Motion To Restrain Assessment . 4 Davis v . Commissioner , supra . 5 In conclusion , we hold that the Court lack s 6 jurisdiction in this case . Accordingly, we shall enter an 7 order and order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction (1) 8 granting Respondent ' s Motion To Dismiss for Lack o f 9 Jurisdiction , filed August 29, 2008, and supplemente d 10 November 14, 2008, and dismissing this case on the ground 11 that no notice of determination was sent to Petitioner ; and 12 (2) denying Petitioner's Motion To Retrain Assessment, filed 13 August 11, 2008 . 14 This concludes the Court ' s oral findings of fact 15 and opinion in this case . 16 (Whereupon , at 11 :55 a .m ., the bench opinion in 17 the above - entitled matter was concluded . ) 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888