TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Charles Lee
Docket Number: 9437-08
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/27/2009
Pages: 10

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 2021 7 CHARLES LEE, Petitione r v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Responden t Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice an d Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith k to petitioner and to . respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the hearing of the above case before Special Trial Judge Rob-ert 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, 200 9 SERVED'. MAR - 5 2009 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial .Judge Robert N . Armen Jr . 2 February 11, 200 9 3 Charles Lee v . Commissioner Docket No . 9437-0 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 relie d 8 upon as precedent in any other case . 9 This proceeding was heard as a regular cas e 10 pursuant to the provisions of Section 7'443A(b)(4) of the 11 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 180 , 12 181, and 182 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 13 Procedur e 14 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 15 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of'lthe Internal Revenue 16 Code of 1986, as amended , and Rule 152 of the Tax Cour t 17 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 18 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, all section 19 numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and 20 all rule numbers refer to-the Tax Court Rules of Practic e 21 and Procedure . 22 John M . Moran appeared on behalf of Respondent . 23 There was .no'appearance by or on behalf'of Petitioner . 24 This case is before the Courton (1) Respondent's 25 Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed June 16 , Heritage Reporting Corporation . (202) 628-4888 4 . 1 2008, and supplemented January 6, 2009, ; 'and (2) Petitioner' s 2 Motion To Restrain Assessment or Collection, filed April 22, 3 2008 . Petitioner resided in the State of New Mexico at the time that the petition was filed with the Court . The facts relevant to the disposition of th e 7 parties' motions are as follows : 8 Petitioner is employed and is subject to income 9 tax withholding at the source on wagesJ7 See Davis v . 10 Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2008-238, for a discussion of the 11 withholding system . q1 12 In 2008, Respondent sent Petitioner's employer a 13 so-called "Lock-in Letter" requiring aprospectiv e iE 14 adjustment to (increase in) Petitioner's',s withholding . See 15 Davis v . Commissioner , . supra , for a discussion of the Lock- 16 in Letter rationale and procedure . 17 On April 22, 2008, Petitioner ; filed both a 18 petition and his Motion To Restrain Assessment and 19 Collection . 21 indicating that he was disputing an IRSI .noticeo f 22 determination concerning collection action . In that regard, 23 Petitioner referenced an IRS notice, dated March 4, 2008, a 24 copy of which was attached to the petition as the sol e 25 exhibit thereto . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 The March 4, 2008, notice, which originated out of 2 the IRS Withholding Compliance Program at Respondent' s 3 service center, referenced Petitioner's' _employer, Honeywell 4 International Inc ., and began as follows : "WHY ARE WE WRITING TO YOU? 6 Based on the additional information you gave us , 7 we find that your response does no,t support a 8 change to the marital status and/o'r withholding 9 allowances specified in our letter" dated Jan . 03 , 10 2008 . 11 WHAT ACTIONS WILL BE TAKEN ? 12 Your employer above * * * must disregard an y 13 change to your marital status and/or withholding 14 allowances (or claim to complete exemption from 15 withholding) and withhold income tax based on the .16 following status and allowances : 17 Marital Status : single ; 18 WithholdingAllowances : 00 . ' 19 We return now to the petition itself . Paragraphs 20 5 and 6, the sole substantive paragraphs of the petition , 21 contain allegations substantively identical to those quoted 22 in Davis v . Commissioner , supra . Those'paragraphs need not 23 therefore be repeated herein . 24 As previously mentioned, Petitioner filed 25 concurrently with the petition his Motion To Restrain . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628- 4888 it 6 1 Assessment and Collection . Petitioner'ss motion is solely 2 focused on Respondent's Lock-in Letter .;: The motion i s 3 essentially the same as the taxpayer' .s,motion to restrai n 4 that was before us in Davis v . Commissioner , supra . In a 5 nutshell, the motion seeks to restrain =Respondent' s 6 direction to Petitioner's employer to henceforth disregard 7 the-information on Petitioner's Form W-4 (Employee' s 8 Withholding Allowance Certificate) and, ;, instead, withhold 9 income tax based on a specified martial status and a 10 specified number of withholding allowances . it 11 In response to the petition herein, Respondent 12 filed on June 16, 2008, his Motion To Dismiss for Lack of 13 Jurisdiction . In his motion, Respondent moves that the 14 instant case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the 15 ground that, as now relevant, no notice' of determination 16 .(see Secs . 6320(c) and 6330(c)) has been issued t o 17 Petitioner . 18 On July 28, 2008, Petitioner filed an Objection t o 19 Respondent's motion . In his objection which is essentiall y 20 the same as that filed by the taxpayer in Davis v . 21 Commissioner , supra , Petitioner appears'!to admit that 22 Respondent has not sent him any notice of determination . it 23 A hearing on the parties' motions was held i n 24 Washington, D .C ., on October 29, 2008 . A further hearing on 25 the parties' motions was held in Washington, D .C ., on . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 February . 11, 2009 . Counsel for Respondent-appeared an d 2 offered argument at both hearings . Inikcontrast, there wa s 3 no appearance by or on behalf of Petitioner at eithe r 4 hearing ; however, Petitioner filed written statements on 5 December 22, 2008, and on February 9, 2,009, in lieu o f 6 appearance at the hearings . See Rule 50(c) . 7 On January 6, 2009, between the two aforementioned is 8 hearings, Respondent filed a supplement to his motion to ' 9 dismiss . 10 Necessarily, we turn first to Respondent ' s Motion 11 To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction , as' supplemented . 12 The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction . 13 See Sec . 7442 . Accordingly, we may exercise jurisdiction 14 only to the extent expressly authorized by statute . Breman 15 v . Commissioner , 66 T .C . 61, 66 (1976) .11 In addition , 16 jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a part y 17 invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that, 18 we have jurisdiction over the-party's case . See Fehrs v . 19 Commissioner , 65 T .C . 346, 348 (1975) ; Wheeler's Peachtre e 20 21 Pharmacy, Inc . v . Commissioner , 35 T .C . 177, 180 (1960) ; National Comm . to Secure Justice, Etc . V . Commissioner , 2 7 22 T .C . 837, 839 (1957) . In order to meet'.'this burden, th e 23 party must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to .24 our jurisdiction . See Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc . v . 25 Commissioner , supra at 180 ; Consolidated Co . V . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 Commissioner , 15 B .T .A . 645, 651 ( 19 29) rt Lien or Levy (Collection) Action . In the petition 3 filed April 22, 2008, Petitioner characterizes his .case as a 4 collection action, and he identifies the document, i n 5 respect of which he is appealing, as the IRS notice, date d 6 March 4, 2008, regarding wage withholding . 7 In a collection action, i .e .,ja lien 8 action, -this Court's jurisdiction under-;;Sections 6320 and 9 6330 depends, in part, on the issuance of a notice o f 10 determination by Respondent's Office of Appeals after th e 11 taxpayer has requested a so-called "collection due process 12 (CDP) hearing" following the issuance by Respondent' s i~ . 13 Collection Division of either a final notice of intent t 14 levy, see Sec . 6330(a), or a notice of filing of Federal tax 15 lien, see Sec . 6320(a) . See Sarrell .v .j'Commissioner , 11 7 16 T .C . 122, 125 (2001) ; Moorhous v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 17 263, 269 (2001) ; Offiler v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 492, 49 8 18 (2000) ; see also Rule 330(b) . is 19 In Davis v . Commissioner , T .C11. Memo . 2008-238, the 20 Court held that the Commissioner's Lock-in Letter is not a 21 collection action within the meaning . of Sections 6320 and 22 6330 . Accordingly, the provisions of those sections do not 23 apply in the .instant case . This means that Respondent was 24 not obliged to, and,, therefore, did not ; issue any notice of { 25 determination . And lacking a notice of .i_determination, this Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 it arguments , for they are no different than those considered,- .and rejected , in Davis v . Commissioner , supra . 5 For the sake of completeness ,3 and inasmuch as 6 Respondent ' s motion, as supplemented , demonstrates tha t 7 notices of deficiency for 2003, 2004 , and 2005 were sent t o Ij Petitioner on-November 13, 2007, we shall briefly discus s 9 the jurisdictional requirements for an action for 10 redetermination of deficiency . 1 1 In an action for the redetermination of a 12 deficiency , the Court ' s jurisdiction, under Section 6213(a ) 13 depends on the issuance by the Commissioner of a notice of 14 deficiency to the taxpayer and the timely filing of a 15 petition by the taxpayer . Frieling v . Commissioner , 81 T .C . 16 42, 46 ( 1983 ) ; Rule 13(a) . 17 Thus, Section 6212 ( a) expressly authorizes the .18 Commissioner, after determining a deficiency, to send a 19 notice of deficiency to the taxpayer byicertified o r 20 registered mail . The taxpayer, in turn, ,l has .90 days, or 150 21 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside th e 22 United States, from the date the noticeryof deficiency i s 23 24 25 mailed to file a petition in this Court for a redetermination of the contested deficiency . Sec . 6213(a) . . In the context of an action fdr redetermination . of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628- 4888 ? 1 0 1 deficiency, this Court has no authority ;j.to restrai n 2 assessment or collection unless a timely petition for a 3 redetermination of the deficiency has been filed and then 4 only in respect of the deficiency that is the subject of 5 such petition . See Sec . 6213(a), penultimate sentence . . 6 The petition in the instant case makes plain tha t 7 Petitioner did not intend .to commence an action fo r redetermination . But even if Petitioner did so intend, th e 9 petition was not timely filed . Yet, even if it were, the 10 subject deficiencies were for 2003, 2004, and 2005, and not 11 for the year for which Respondent's Lock-in Letter was firs t '.1 12 effective . Further, tax withholding is not a deficienc y 13 within . the meaning of Section 6211(a) . 14 In short, this Court lacks jurisdiction to enjoi n 15 -what Petitioner seeks us-to enjoin . . . Davis v . Commissioner , 16 supra . W 17 In view of the foregoing, we shall grant 18 Respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, a s 19' supplemented . It-necessarily follows that we must, and we 20 shall, deny Petitioner ' s Motion To Restrain Assessment or 21 Collection . Davis v . Commissioner , supra . 22 in conclusion , we hold that the Court lack s 23 jurisdiction in this case . Accordin g lY, 'we shall enter an 24 order and Order of Dismissal for Lack of; Jurisdiction (1) 25 granting Respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Heritage . Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 1 1 Jurisdiction, filed June 16, 2008, and supplemented January 2 .6, 2009, : and dismissing. this case on the ground that n o 3 notice of determination was sent to Petitioner ; and (2) 4 denying Petitioner's Motion To Retrain Assessment and 5 Collection, filed April 22, 2008 . 6 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fac t 7 and opinion in this case . (Whereupon, at 12 :00 p .m ., the bench opinion i n 9 the above-entitled matter was concluded? . ) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 // . 21 22 23 24 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888