TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Chiquita T. Tuttle
Docket Number: 5661-08L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/23/2008
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , D .C . 2021 7 CHIQUITA T . TUTTLE, Petitioner, v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . Docket No . 5661-08L 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 Judge Diane L . Kroupa at San Francisco, California on September 25, 2008, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered after the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order of dismissal for lack of Jurisdiction will be entered granting Respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction . (Signed ) Diane L. Kroupa Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . October 23, 2008 SERVED OCT 2 4 2008 2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (2 :21 p .m .) 3 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa September 25, 2008 4 Chiquita T . Tuttle v . Commissioner Docket No . 5661-08L 5 THE CLERK : Docket No . 5661-08L, Chiquita T . 6 Tuttle . 7 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render ora l 8 findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following 9 represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . 10 These oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied 11 upon as precedent in any other case . 12 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 13 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue 14 Code, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice & 15 Procedure . All section references are to the Interna l 16 Revenue Code for the years at issue, and all rule references 17 are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure . 18 This collection review matter is before the Court 19 on Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, 20 filed April 28th, 2008 . Petitioner filed an opposition on 21 May 19th, 2008, and filed a supplemental opposition t o 22 Respondent's motion on June 10th, 2008 . 23 The Court set Respondent's motion to dismiss for 24 hearing on the Court's September 22nd, 2008, trial session 25 in San Francisco, California . William E . Taggart, Jr . , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 appeared on behalf of Petitioner . Kaelyn Romey appeared o n 2 behalf of Respondent . 3 The issue for decision is whether Petitione r 4 timely requested a collection due process, otherwise known 5 as CDP, hearing . We hold that she did not, and therefore we 6 shall grant Respondent's motion to dismiss . 7 FINDINGS OF FACT 8 The record establishes, or the parties do not 9 dispute, the following facts . 10 Petitioner resided in California at the time she 11 filed the petition in this case . Respondent determined that 12 Petitioner was a 'responsible officer' under section 667 2 13 regarding the trust fund portion of employment ta x 14 liabilities of the African-American Aids Support & Survival 15 Institute for the four quarters of the institute's tax year 16 2002 . 17 Respondent issued to Petitioner by certified mail, 18 return receipt requested, a notice of federal tax lie n 19 filing and your rights to a hearing under section 6320, 20 dated July 24th, 2007, regarding Respondent's collectio n 21 action for the trust fund penalties . This document shall be 22 referred to as the lien notice . 23 The lien notice specified that the deadline fo r 24 requesting a CDP hearing was August 30th, 2007 . We focus on 25 the lien notice as this resolves the issue in this case, but Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 we note that Respondent also issued to Petitioner b y 2 certified mail, return receipt requested , a final notice, 3 notice of intent to levy, dated July 30, 2007 . 4 Petitioner prepared a request for a CDP hearing on 5 August 21st , 2007 . Petitioner asserts that the CDP hearing 6 request was mailed on August 21st, 2007 , when it wa s 7 prepared . Petitioner is nonetheless unable to provide the 8 Court with a receipt that the hearing request was mailed on 9 August 21st, 2007, or was filed timely . Petitioner' s 10 request for a hearing was not mailed by certified or 11 registered mail . 12 In addition , Petitioner mailed the hearing request 13 to the wrong address . Petitioner mailed the hearing request 14 to Respondent ' s campus in Cincinnati, Ohio, rather tha n 15 Respondent ' s office in Oakland, California , as specified in 16 the lien notice . Respondent ' s settlement officer did not 17 receive a copy of the hearing request until Petitioner' s 18 representative faxed her a copy on September 6th, 2007 . 19 Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of 20 jurisdiction on April 28th , 2008 . Respondent contends that 21 the CDP request was not mailed to Respondent ' s settlement 22 officer within the 30-day period for timely requesting a 23 hearing under section 6330(a)(2) and section 6320 (a) (3) (B) . 24 25 The record reflects that the 30-day period for Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 filing a timely hearing request expired on August 29th , 2 2007 . 3 OPINION 4 We now address whether Petitioner timely requested 5 a CDP hearing within the required 30-day period . Th e 6 special rules of section 7502 do not apply to treat a timely 7 mailed hearing request as though it were timely filed . 8 There is no documentary evidence when the hearing request 9 was mailed . There is only information about when th e 10 hearing request was prepared . 11 In addition, this information is inconsistent , 12 because the hearing request is dated a different day than it 13 was allegedly mailed . Moreover, Petitioner has failed t o 14 provide any documentary evidence to take advantage of the 15 timely mailing, timely filing rule contained in section 16 301 .7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(b), Procedure & Administration Regs . 17 That generally provides that a document bearing a 18 timely private postage meter postmark will satisfy th e 19 timely mailing, timely filing rule so long as the document 20 is received within the normal mailing time for an item that 21 is properly addressed and postmarked at the same point of 22 origin by the United States post office . 23 Petitioner asserts that the hearing request was 24 prepared and mailed in the ordinary course of business but 25 failed to introduce any evidence for the United State s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 Postal Service when an envelope properly addressed an d 2 bearing a United States postmark with the date of Augus t 3 21st, 2007, would have ordinarily been received . 6 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In addition, Petitioner failed to establish that , one, the envelope bearing the hearing request was actually deposite d in the mail in a timely fashion ; two, the delay i n receiving the envelope was due to a delay in th e transmis sion of the mail ; and, three, the cause of suc h delay . Id . Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements o f the regulation ., See Fishman v . Commissioner , 420 F .2d 491 , , 492 (2nd Cirk . 1970) affg . 51 T .C . 869 ; cf . Jones v . ) Commissioner , T .C . Memo 1998-197 . The taxpayer met requirements for non-US postmark regulation when evidence established in part the taxpaye r deposited the envelope in the mail before the las t collection . It follows that the hearing request was not timel y filed . It is well established that this Court is a court o f limited jurisdiction . Jurisdictions under section 6320 o r 6330 is contingent upon the issuance of a valid notice o f determination . Offiler v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 492, 49 8 (2000) . The Court does not have jurisdiction if a notic e of determination is not issued to the taxpayer . Kennedy v . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 25 7 Commissioner , 116 T .C . 255 (2001) . Here Respondent issued a decision document, not a determination notice, because Petitioner did not timel y request a CDP hearing within the required 30-day period . An appropriate order will be issued grantin g Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction . This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case . Thank you . We are in recess until 10 :00 tomorrow . THE CLERK : All rise . (Whereupon, at 2 :30 p .m ., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) / / Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888