TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Daniel C. Long
Docket Number: 10681-09S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/19/2010
Pages: 9

("A. Vi S S 4r",3 j/4-/ UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 DANIEL C . LONG, Petitione r V . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent Docket No . 10681-095 . 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 Detroit, Michigan, on March 3, 2010, 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 . March 19, 2010 OWED MAR 22 20 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen 2 March 3, 201 0 3 Long v . Commissioner Docket No . 10681-09S 4 I . 5 THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER ORA L 6 FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE, AND TH E 7 FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT 8 AND OPINION . THE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINIO N 9 SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER 10 CASE . 11 II . 12 This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Case 13 pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of th e 14 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 15 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 16 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 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 3 Procedure . IV . Timothy S . Murphy appeared on behalf o f respondent . There was no appearance by or on behal f of Daniel C . Long (petitioner) . V . By Notice dated and served on September 23 , 2009, this case was calendared for trial at th e Court's trial session commencing on March 1, 2010, i n Detroit, Michigan . By Order dated February122, 2010 , the Court identified a potential jurisdictional defec t and, inter alia, calendared this case for hearing o n March 1, 2010, in Detroit, Michigan, regarding th e timeliness of the petition . Upon the call of this case from the calenda r on March 1, 2010, in Detroit, Michigan, responden t filed with the Court a Motion To Dismiss For Lack O f Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was no t filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502 . Later in the morning the motion wa s argued to the Court . At no time during the day di d petitioner appear . VI . Because this Court may only hear and decid e a case on the merits if the Court has jurisdiction , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 the threshold issue for decision is necessarily 2 whether petitioner filed his petition fo r 3 redetermination of deficiency within the 90' .day period 4 prescribed by sections 6213(a) and 7502 . 5 VII . 6 The facts necessary to a resolution of the 7 jurisdictional issue are as follows : 8 On January 2, 2009, respondent mailed a 9 notice of deficiency to petitioner . In the notice, 10 respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner' s 11 Federal income taxes for the taxable years 2005 and 12 2006 in the amounts of $1,620 .00 and $1,155 .20 , 13 respectively . 14 The notice was sent to petitioner b y 15 certified mail addressed to him at 8456 3rd Avenue , 16 Onekama, MI 49675 . We shall hereinafter refer to this 17 address as the Onekama address . 18 The first page of the notice of deficiency 19 states as follows : "Last Day to File a Petition with 20 the United States Tax Court : April 2, 2009 1" . Th e 21 notice instructs that a petition should be filed with 22 the Tax Court "at the above address", which address is 23 specified as 400 Second Street, N .W ., Washington, D .C . 24 20217 . 25 On May 5, 2009, petitioner filed a petition Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 with this Court seeking a redetermination of th e 2 deficiencies determined by respondent in the notice of 3 deficiency . The petition arrived at the Court b y 4 regular first - class mail in an envelope bearing a 5 United States Postal Service postmark date of April 6 30, 2009 . Included within said envelope was another 7 envelope, this one postmarked April 1, 2009, bu t 8 addressed to the Department of Treasury, IRS, in 9 Detroit, Michigan . That envelope was stampe d 10 "received" on April 2, 2009, by the "PVM Mailroom" . 11 In his petition, petitioner listed hi s 12 address as the Onekama address . As an exhibit to the 13 petition, petitioner attached a copy of the January 2, 14 2009 notice of deficiency that had been sent to him at 15 the Onekama address . 16 As indicated, after the Court expresse d 17 concern about its jurisdiction in this cas e 18 respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of 19 Jurisdiction on March 1, 2010 . In the motion, 20 respondent contends that dismissal for lack o f 21 jurisdiction is required because petitioner failed to 22 file a timely petition . 23 VIII . 24 This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a 25 deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance of a Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 valid notice of deficiency and a timely-file d 2 petition . Monge v . Commissioner , 93 T .C . 22, 2 7 3 (1989) ; Normac, Inc . v . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 142, 147 4 (1988) ; Rule 13(a), (c) . Section 6212(a) expressl y 5 authorizes respondent, after determining a deficiency, 6 to send a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer b y 7 certified or registered mail . It is sufficient fo r 8 jurisdictional purposes if respondent mails the notice 9 of deficiency to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's "last 10 known address" . Sec . 6212(b) ; Frieling v . 11 Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 52 (1983) . Indeed, if the 12 notice is mailed to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's 13 last known address, actual receipt of the notice by 14 the taxpayer is immaterial . See King v . Commissioner , 15 857 F .2d 676, 679 (9th Cir . 1988), affg . 88 T .C . 1042 16 (1987) ; Yusko v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 806, 81 0 17 (1987) ; Frieling v . Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 5 2 18 (1983) . The taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days, or 150 19 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside 20 the United States, from the date the notice o f 21 deficiency is mailed to file a petition in this Court 22 for a redetermination of the contested deficiency . 23 Sec . 6213(a) . By virtue of section 7502, a petition 24 that is timely mailed is deemed to be timely filed . 25 However, section 7502 makes plain that the timel y Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 mailing rule applies only if, inter alia, the envelope 2 is "properly addressed to the * * * office with which 3 the * * * document is required to be filed'! . Sec . 4 7502 ( a) (2) (B) . It is clear in the present 5 case that respondent mailed the notice of deficiency 6 to petitioner on January 2, 2009 . See Magazine v . 7 Commissioner , 89 T .C . 321, 327 n .8 (1987), holding 8 that Postal Service Form 3877, or its equivalent , 9 represents direct evidence of the date of mailing of 10 the notice of deficiency . Therefore, the 90-da y 11 period within which petitioner was required,to fil e 12 his petition with the Court expired on Thursday, April 13 2, 2009 . However, petitioner did not file a petition 14 for redetermination with this Court until May 5, 2009, 15 a date after the expiration of the critical 90-day 16 period . Moreover, the petition arrived at the Court 17 in an envelope bearing a U .S . Postal Service postmark 18 date of April 30, 2009, once again a date after th e 19 expiration of the critical 90-day period . Under these 20 circumstances, respondent contends that the petition 21 was not timely filed and that the Court lack s 22 jurisdiction to redetermine petitioner's liability for 23 the deficiencies for the taxable years in issue . 2 4 25 IX . The defense most commonly asserted b y Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 taxpayers in cases such as the present one is that a 2 particular notice of deficiency was not mailed to the 3 taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known address and i s 4 therefore invalid . This defense does not appear to b e 5 applicable in the present case inasmuch as the notice 6 of deficiency was mailed to petitioner at the address 7 that he himself listed in the petition . Accordingly, 8 we need not belabor this matter . 9 Although the record does indicate tha t 10 petitioner mailed his petition on April 1, 2009, any 11 reliance on the timely mailing/timely filing rule of 12 section 7502 is to no avail because the envelope was 13 addressed to the Department of the Treasury i n 14 Detroit, Michigan, and not to the Tax Court i n 15 Washington, D .C . In other words, the envelope was not 16 properly addressed . Thus, the petition is not treated 17 as filed when originally mailed on April 1,12009 ; 18 rather, the petition is treated as filed upon receipt 19 by the Court in Washington, D .C ., on May 5, 2009 . 20 X . 21 In view of the foregoing, we hold that the 22 petition in this case was not timely filed pursuant to 23 either section 6213(a) or section 7502 . Accordingly, 24 we shall grant respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Lack 25 Of Jurisdiction, filed March 1, 2010, and we shal l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on the i 2 ground that the petition was not timely filed . 3 XI . 4 Finally , a postscript . 5 Although petitioner cannot pursue a case in 6 this Court , counsel for respondent acknowledged at the 7 hearing that respondent will honor , administrativel y 8 and therefore outside the auspices of the Court, the 9 agreement previously reached between petitioner and 10 respondent ' s office of Appeals . 11 XII . 12 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT ' S ORAL FINDINGS OF 13 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . 14 (Whereupon , at 1 :25 p .m ., the bench opinion 15 in the above - entitled matter was concluded .' ) 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 2 2 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888