TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Karol Z. Widemon
Docket Number: 1926-16
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/10/2017
Pages: 8

SEC UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 KAROL Z. WIDEMON, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 1926-16. ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is 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 in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Birmingham, Alabama on January 25, 2017, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed September 14, 2016, will be granted. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 10, 2017 SERVED Feb 14 2017 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke January 25, 2017 Karol Z. Widemon v. Commissioner .; Docket No. 1926-16 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. The Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This matter is before the Court based upon Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. At the time the petition in this 14 matter was filed the Petitioner resided in Georgia. 15 16 17 18 The basic circumstances concerning the timing of the issuance of the notice of deficiency for the taxable year 2012 and the notice of deficiency for the taxable year 2011 and the 19 ' subsequent petition, which was filed in the Tax Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 relative to these notices of deficiency is not disputed. The notices of deficiency were issued in November, 2012 and December, 2012 and the petition was not filed until January, 2016. It is absolutely undisputed that the petition did not provide 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 jurisdiction to this Court. What is disputed is whether the notices of deficiency were mailed to the Petitioner's last known address; and, therefore, whether the notices of deficiency were valid. First we note that it is well established and undisputed in the Courts of Appeals of the United States and in the Tax Court that Section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code is jurisdictional relative to a matter brought before the Court to contest an income tax deficiency. Therefore, it is clear that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the present matter. What we need to determine, however, is on what basis the Court does not have jurisdiction. That is, whether the petition was not timely or 17 whether the notices of deficiency were invalid. 18 19 20 Before proceeding we note that this opinion is rendered pursuant to the authority of Internal Revenue Code Section 7459(b) and Rule 152 of the Tax 21 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Section 22 23 24 25 references hereinafter in this opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years 2011 and 2012 and as it relates to the timing of the notice of deficiency in effect for the year 2014. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Since the Internal Revenue Code provisions at issue in this case are longstanding, there's no question about which is the appropriate statute for a reference. The rules relating to what is the appropriate address on file with the Internal Revenue Service are well established and have been embodied in regulations. We reference Treasury Reg. Section 301.6212-2, which provides the definition of last known address. The general rule under this regulation, which is relied upon by Respondent in the present case, is that the taxpayer's last known address is the address that appears on the taxpayer's 14 most recently filed and properly processed federal 15 16 17 18 tax return. However, the regulation goes on and provides that alternative addresses may be provided by third parties, specifically United States Post 19 Office. We reference Treas. Reg. Section 301.621- 20 21 22 23 2(b)(2), which provides an exception for an address obtained from the United States Post Office updating the taxpayer's address. The regulation specifically provides that the IRS will update taxpayer addresses 24 maintained in IRS records by referring to data 25 accumulated and maintained in the United States 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 Postal Service National Change of Address Database that retains change of address information for 36 3 months. 4 5 6 7 8 The regulation further provides in Subsection (2)(ii) the duration for the address obtained from the Postal Service. In particular the regulation states that the Postal Service database address will be the taxpayer's last known address 9 until one of the following events occurs: The first 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 of these two events is that the taxpayer files and the IRS properly processes a federal tax return with an address different from the address obtained from the Postal Service database. The second circumstance is if the taxpayer provides the Internal Revenue Service a clear and concise notification of change of address, which did not occur in the present case. We believe that regulation controls the outcome of the present matter. The taxpayer, the 19 Petitioner in this case, clearly asserts that she and 20 21 22 her husband sent change of address forms to the post office. She explains that she and her husband moved from their address in Tuscaloosa, Alabama to Atlanta, 23 Georgia in September, 2013. 24 25 She further states that a change of address form was sent to the Postal Service at the time of 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 their move and that subsequent change of address form was sent in March, 2014. Respondent counters with information attached to Respondent's response to Petitioner's response to Respondent's motion which asserts that the Internal Revenue Service received in April of 2014 a federal income tax return for the Petitioner for the calendar year 2013, which based upon 9 Respondent's records set forth the address which was 10 11 12 13 14 15 used by the Respondent in sending out the notices of deficiency in question, both of which were sent after the filing of the 2013 federal income tax return by the Petitioner. The dispute becomes more complex because the Petitioner submitted the 16 motion in question, what she purported to represent 17 as a copy of her 2013 federal income tax return, 18 which actually reflects the address she maintains was 19 her address at the time in question in Atlanta, 20 Georgia. 21 22 23 24 25 However, Petitioner's assertions concerning that address were somewhat ambiguous, given that she also stated that the address originally reflected on the eturn was the address used by the Internal Revenue Service to send the notices of deficiency, 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 which was a P.O. Box in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 2 As I stated previously, Respondent 3 maintains that 6het Post Office Box address was, in 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fact, the same address which Petitioner used on the federal income tax return which she filed for the calendar year 2013. While the Petitioner maintained that the Atlanta address was placed on the 2013 federal income tax return before it was filed, we find this assertion to lack credibility in light of the Internal Revenue Service records of the computerized return, which records were attached to the response Respondent submitted in compliance with this Court's order, which response was filed on November 18th, 2016. Exhibit A to that response is a tax return transcript from the Internal Revenue Service files, which reflects that the 1040 form of the Petitioner for the period ending December 31st, 2013, reflected the P.O. Box address in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. We believe this was, in fact, the address on the return which Petitioner filed for 2013, based upon Respondent's records of the computerized return. Géven Lhat clear application of the regulation,-èe would provide that the proper address for Respondent to use in issuing the notices of 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 deficiency in question in this case would be the P.O. Box in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, which unfortunately was not actually Petitioner's address at the time, but which was the most recent address for Respondent to use based upon a strict application of the appropriate Treasury Regulations. Therefore, we believe in the present case the notices of deficiency were valid and we grant 9 Respondent's motion to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that the petition filed by the Petitioner was not timely. This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. . . (Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com