TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Gabriel L. Roman
Docket Number: 7671-17
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/27/2018
Pages: 6

RS LUMINITA ROMAN, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 ) ) ) ) Docket No. 10878-16, 7671-17 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) 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 petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above cases before Chief Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Los Angeles, California, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the cases were heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order denying petitioners' motions will be issued. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. December 27, 2018 SERVED Dec 28 2018 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo 3 December 6, 2018 Luminita Roman, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket Nos. 10878-16 and 7671-17 Consolidated THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this consolidated case and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion (bench opinion). Section references made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 13 authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. Except as 14 provided in Rule 152(c), this bench opinion shall not be 15 16 cited as authority. Each case for the redetermination of a 17 deficiency consolidated in this proceeding was assigned to 18 the undersigned solely for the purpose of ruling on 19 petitioners' motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, both 20 21 filed on February 14, 2018. See section 7443A(b) (7). A hearing was conducted on the motions in Los Angeles, 22 California, on May 15, 2018, and a further hearing was 23 conducted on the motions in Los Angeles, California, on 24 25 December 4, 2018. Luminita Roman and Gabriel Roman appeared, both unrepresented, at both hearings. Under the (9733406.2250]operationseescribermet|www.escriberseet 4 circumstances, the Court allowed Luminita Roman to speak on behalf of Gabriel Roman at the further hearing. Alexander DeVitis, Christine A. Fukushima and Andrea M. Faldermeyer appeared on behalf of respondent at the December 4, 2018, further hearing. Prior to the further hearing, the Court reviewed the submissions of the parties filed between the dates of the May 15, 2018, hearing and the further hearing. Those submissions, along with statements and arguments presented at the hearings are taken into account in the findings and rulings embodied in this bench opinion. According to petitioners, the Court is without jurisdiction in these cases because the notice of deficiency that forms the basis for each one is not valid. See Monge v. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989) (A valid notice of 15 deficiency and a timely petition are essential to the 16 Court's jurisdiction in a case for the redetermination of a 17 deficiency.) As petitioners view the matter, neither notice of 18 deficiency is valid because neither was authorized by an 19 individual with the authority to issue a notice of 20 deficiency. As petitioners view the matter, each notice was 21 generated by a computer, and computers have not been delegated 22 the Commissioner's authority to issue notices of deficiency. 23 24 In support of their point, they refer to certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Manual that restrict further delegations 25 of the authority to issue a notice of deficiency. In that à cribers (973)406-2250|operationst#escribers.net|www.esaibers.net 5 regard, we wonder if petitioners are confusing the authority to issue a notice of deficiency with the mechanical process of preparing, creating or printing one, but we doubt that we could convince petitioners to recognize that distinction, and we need not do so in order to resolve the motions here under consideration. Instead, we begin by noting some fundamental principles that will inform our findings and rulings. First, it has long been established that a notice of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 deficiency need not take any specific form and is valid if 11 12 13 14 15 16 it puts a taxpayer on notice that the Commissioner intends to assess a tax. See Olsen v. Helvering, 88 F.2d 650, 651 (2d Cir. 1937). Second, a notice of deficiency need not be signed to be valid. Urban v. Commissioner, 964 F.2d 888, 889 (9th Cir. 1992), aff'g T.C. Memo. 1991-220; Banister v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-10, aff'd sub nom., 664 F. 17 App'x 673 (9th Cir. 2016). Third, various provisions of the 18 Internal Revenue Manual, cited in papers submitted by 19 respondent as well as by petitioners, specify what offices 20 21 and/or offic.ers of the Internal Revenue Service have been delegated, the Commissioner's authority to issue a notice of 22 deficiency pursuant to section 6212(a). 23 24 2-5 Set against these fundamental principles, we exam1ne the two notices of deficiency involved in this proceeding. In so doing, we find that it is beyond disagreement that both (973)406-2250|operationsgerribers.net|www.escribersnet adequately advise each petitioner that the Commissioner 6 intends to assess an income tax. We further find that the lack of signature on the notice of deficiency that forms the basis for docket number 10878-16 does not affect its validity, and that the notice was issued by an office or officer of the Internal Revenue Service authorized to do so. To the extent that respondent bears any burden to establish that the notice of deficiency that forms the basis for docket number 7671-17 has been properly issued, we find that burden to have been satisfied. To the extent that the burden rests with petitioners to establish that the individual who issued of the notice of deficiency that forms the basis for docket number 7671-17 was not authorized to do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 so, we find that they have failed to satisfy that burden. 16 17 18 19 See Perlmutter v. Commissioner, 44 T.C. 382, 399 (1965). Lastly we find that both notices of deficiency, one showing the signature of an Internal Revenue employee and the other unsigned, were issued by offices or officials of the 20 Internal Revenue Service duly authorized by delegation order 21 to have done so. The fact that respondent might have 22 provided inaccurate information to petitioners regarding who 23 was involved in the issuance of one of the notices of 24 deficiency has no effect on the validity of that notice. 25 Because each notice of deficiency is valid, and (973)406-2250|operationsperribersnet|www.escribers.net because each petition was timely filed in response to each 7 notice, the Court has jurisdiction over both of the deficiency cases consolidated in this proceeding. It follows that petitioners' motions must be denied. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order denying petitioners' motions will be issued. (Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 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 73)4½2250]operations@escribersnetlwwnescribersaet