TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Judith S. Schwartz
Docket Number: 23129-13S
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/24/2014
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 JUDITH S. SCHWARTZ, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Docket No. 23129-13S. Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith the to petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, containing his oral session at which the case was heard. in the above case before Special Trial the pages of the trial findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial In accordance with the oral appropriate Order will be issued. findings of fact and opinion, an (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. October 24, 2014 ERVED OCT 2 7 2014 Capital Reporting Company 3 Bench Opinion by Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo September 18, 2014 Judith S. Schwartz v. Commissioner Docket No. 23129-13S THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion (bench opinion). Unless otherwise noted, section references made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period, and rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. This proceeding for the redeterminations of deficiencies is a small tax case, subject to the provisions of section 7453 and Rules 170 through 175. Pursuant to section 7453(b), the decision or an otherwise dispositive order entered in this case shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Except as provided in Rule 152(c), this bench opinion shall not be cited as authority. This case is before the Court on petitioner's Motion for Leave to File a Motion to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com .. Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 5 Vacate Order, filed July 22, 2014, and supplemented on September 16, 2014. Petitioner's motion, as supplemented (motion) was heard on September 16, 2014 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Counsel for petitioner appeared and argued in support of the 6 motion. Counsel for respondent appeared and noted 7 8 his objection to it. The facts relevant to the disposition of 9 petitioner's motion are easily summarized. In a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 notice of deficiency dated July 16, 2013 (notice), respondent determined substantial deficiencies in petitioner's 2008 and 2009 Federal income taxes. This case was commenced in response to the notice, but the petition filed October 17, 2013, does not bear an original signature of petition or a person admitted to practice before the Court. See Rule 23(a)(3). Instead, the petition shows only a photocopied example of petitioner's signature. The 19 petition also shows the address of a certified public 20 accountant (CPA) as petitioner's address, and that is 21 22 23 24 25 the address relied upon by the Court for purposes of service. See Rule 21(b)(1) (A). By letter dated October 28, 2013, the Court notified the CPA that she would not be recognized as petitioner's representative in this case because she 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 was not admitted to practice before the Court. The letter went on to advise the CPA that "all future communications by the Court will be made directly 4 with the petitioner(s)." The letter shows that a 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 copy of the letter was sent to petitioner, presumably at the address of the CPA. By Orders dated October 31, 2013 and December 27, 2013, petitioner was given the opportunity to ratify the filing of the petition (orders to ratify). The orders to ratify would have been served on petitioner at her address of record, that is the address of the CPA. Because the Court received no response to either of the orders to ratify, the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by order of dismissal entered February 25, 2014. The order of dismissal became final 90 days later. See sec. 7481(b). Apparently petitioner did not receive either directly from the Court or indirectly from the CPA either of the orders for ratification. Relief from a final decision or dispositive order entered in this Court is available under the circumstances described in Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rule 1; Farner v. Commissioner, T. C. Memo. 2012-111. As relevant FRCP 60(b)(1) provides that relief is available on account 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 of "excusable neglect," and FRCP 60(b)(6) provides that relief is available for "any other reason that justifies" it. None of the other provisions of FRCP 60(b) are applicable here. It would seem that the CPA did not notify petitioner regarding her (petitioner's) obligation to ratify the petition in response to the orders to ratify. The CPA's apparent failure to do so would further seem to constitute "neglect," but we would consider that neglect inexcusable. That being so, we consider whether the underlying circumstances provide a "reason that justifies relief" pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(6). Two fundamental principles inform our analysis. One provides that a Federal court should rule in favor of jurisdiction in circumstances that would allow a ruling either way. The second is that under our system of jurisprudence, notice is considered one of the "cornerstones" of due process. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950). All things considered, we are satisfied that petitioner did not receive notice of the orders to ratify. We are further satisfied that if she did receive such notice, she would have responded as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 directed. She will be given one more, and we expect it would be one last chance to ratify. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order granting petitioner's motion will be issued. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:39 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com