TAX COURT OPINION

Case: James Shaw Larson
Docket Number: 14532-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/18/2009
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 202 .1 7 JAMES SHAW LARSON, Petitioner , v . ) Docket No . 14532-08 S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . 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 trial of the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo at Atlanta, Georgia , on February 26, 2009, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order will be entered granting respondent's motion and dismissing . this case for lack of jurisdiction . (Signed ) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . March 18, 2009 SERVED Mar 19 2009 2 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo 2 February'26, . 2009 3 Larson v . Commissioner Docket Number 14532-08S 4 THE COURT : The court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, an d 6 the following represents the Court's oral findings of 7 fact and opinion . The oral findings of fact and 8 opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 9 other case . 10 This proceeding is a Small . Tax Cas e 11 conducted pursuant to the provisions of Section 7463 12 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and 13 Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules o f 14 Practice and Procedure . 15 This bench .opinion is made pursuant to the 16 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Internal 17 Revenue Code°of 1986, as amended, and .Rule 152 of the 18 Tax Court Rules of Practice and .Procedure . Unless 19 otherwise indicated, subsequent section reference s 20 made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue 21 Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevan t 22 period . 23 James-Shaw Larson appeared pro se . Kristen 24 I . Nygren appeared on behalf of Respondent . 25 This case is before the Court on Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) Q28-4888 3 1 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack o f 2 Jurisdiction, filed August 25, 2008 . Respondent's 3 motion is based upon the ground that Respondent ha s 4 made no determination that could provide the basis fo r .5 jurisdiction in this case with respect to the year s 6 placed in dispute in the petition . or amended petition . 7 Petitioner's objection to Respondent's motion wa s 8 filed November 3, 2008 . A hearing was conducted on 9 Respondent's motion in Atlanta, Georgia, on February, 10 23, 2008 . The parties appeared and were heard . 11 The underlying facts relevant to th e 12 disposition of Respondent's motion are not in dispute 13 and are easily summarized . The petition in this case, 14 filed pro se on June 12, 2008, references the seizure 15 and sale of him home by Respondent and suggests that 16 Petitioner commenced this case to "appeal [the] denial 17 for the return of $30,500 in the year 1998 ." In an 18 amended petition filed July 7, 2008, Petitione r 19 references the years 1990, 1993, 1994 and 1995 . The 20 amended petition also mentions the sale o f 21 Petitioner's residence for $30,500 in 1997 . According 22 to the amended petition, . Petitioner redeemed the 23 residence for $33,500 in February 1998 . The amended 24 petition contains the following claim for relief . III 25 want . to recover above amount ." The "above amount" Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 apparently refers to the amount Petitioner paid to 2 redeem his residence . 3 Before the petition was filed in this case , 4 Petitioner apparently made a formal claim for refund 5 for $30,500 for the year . 1990 . By letter date d 6 December 14, 2007, Respondent disallowed that claim 7 and notified Petitioner. of his right to file suit in 8 either the United States District Court or the United 9 States Court of Federal claims . Petitioner attached 10 that letter to the amended petition . 11 A fair reading of the petition and of the 12 amended petition, together with statements made by 13 Petitioner at the hearing demonstrate that Petitioner 14 commenced this case seeking an income tax refund for 15 1990 . Under the . circumstances it is clear that .we 16 have no refund jurisdiction, nor could we acquire such 17 jurisdiction with respect to his claim . Petitioner is 18 advised to consider what rights he might have t o 19 pursue his refund claim in other Federal courts . 20 In closing we should note that in a notice 21 of deficiency dated March 24, 2008, Responden t 22 determined a deficiency in Petitioner's 2006 Federal 23 income tax, and if the petition were filed in response 24 to that notice we would acquire jurisdiction t o 25 redetermine that deficiency for that year . See Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 62 8-4888 5 1 Section 6213(a)'. But giving Petitioner the benefit of 2 every .doubt with respect to allegations made in th e 3 petition or amended petition, and considering his 4 presentation at the hearing, we can find nothing 5 whatsoever anywhere in the record that suggest s 6 Petitioner intended the petition or amended petitio n to dispute the determination of the 2006 deficiency . To reflect the foregoing, an appropriat e 9 order will be entered granting Respondent's motion and 10 dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction . 11 This concludes the Court's oral findings o f 12 fact and opinion in this case . 13 (Whereupon, at 9 :27 a .m ., the bench opinion 14 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 / / 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 8M 8 -4888