TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Steven R. & Jirawan Staehr
Docket Number: 7272-11
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/30/2012
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 STEVEN R. AND JIRAWAN STAEHR, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORD ER Docket No. 7272-11 Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the proceedings in the above case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa at Las Vegas, Nevada, on March 15, 2012, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction will be granted. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. April 30, 2012 SERVED MAY -2 2012 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 BENCH OPINION BY JUDGE DIANE L. KROUPA STEVEN AND JIRAWAN STAEHR V. COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO.: 7272-11 MARCH 15, 2012 3 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for 2008, the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This case is before the Court on Respondent's motion to dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed on February 2, 2012. Petitioners filed an objection. The Court scheduled Respondent's motion for a hearing in Las Vegas, Nevada. Petitioner Steven Staehr appeared on behalf of Petitioners, and Wesley Wong appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes or the parties do not 4 dispute the following facts. Petitioners lived in Nevada when they filed the petition. Petitioners seek a redetermination of an alleged deficiency determined by Respondent for the taxable year 2008. Petitioners allege that a deficiency notice was issued to them on December 20, 2010. They did not attach a deficiency notice to their petition. Nor were petitioners able to provide the Court at the hearing with any deficiency notice. All Petitioners had was an IRS Notice CP 2000 mailed to Petitioners on December 20, 2010, that Petitioners attached to the petition. After search and inquiry, Respondent has not identified any record, information, or other evidence of a deficiency notice mailed to Petitioners on December 20, 2010. Respondent has found some indications that a deficiency notice may have been issued to Petitioners on November 29, 2010 regarding the year at issue, but Respondent cannot locate a copy of the notice, or any other notice that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 5 As mentioned previously, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and Petitioners objected. The Court held a hearing on Respondent's motion in Las Vegas, Nevada. OPINION We now address whether we have jurisdiction to hear Petitioners' case. Respondent.asks us to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction because neither party can show that a deficiency notice was sent to Petitioners, either in November or December 2010. We must do so. We'focus now on this.Court's jurisdiction. The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529. (1985).. This Court!s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on the issuance of a valid deficiency nótice and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142 (1988). Petitioners bear the burden of proving that the Court has juriisdiction over this case. See Patz Trust v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 497, 503 (1977). Petitioners have been unable to show that they Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 received, or were sent, a deficiency notice. Petitioners were also unable to provide any other notice that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Petitioners attached to their petition an IRS Notice CP 2000 regarding the 2008 tax year. We therefore will consider whether this document gives us jurisdiction. To determine whether the IRS Notice CP 2000 is a deficiency notice, we look to whether it purports to be a deficiency notice and whether the Commissioner intended it as such. Abrams v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 1308, 1310 (1985), aff'd 787 F.2d 939 (4th Cir. 1986); Hendeles v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2008-206. The IRS Notice CP 2000 has tentative language and does not identify itself as a deficiency notice. We are unable to find that Respondent .intended it to be a deficiency notice. Petitioners do not claim that Respondent issued to them any other type of determination that would confer jurisdiction on the Court. Accordingly, we must grant Respondent's motion. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order will be issued granting Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. This concludes the Court's oral findings of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 fact and opinion in this case. // (Whereupon, at 10:03 a.m. / the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 7 // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888