TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Meredith Shannon Woodfin
Docket Number: 15060-10S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/25/2011
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT 20217 WASHINGTON, D.C. MEREDITH SHANNON AND JOSHUA MICHAEL WOODFIN, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Re spondent . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 15060-10S O R D E R 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 transcript of Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Los Angeles, California, on February 1, 2011, containing his oral opinion rendered at the above case before Special the conclusion of trial. the pages of the trial of the findings of fact and In accordance with the oral fact and opinion, an appropriate order will be issued (1) granting respondent's motion as to Joshua Michael Woodfin, to petitioner, and (3) changing the caption. (2) denying respondent's motion as findings of (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 25, 2011 8ERVED MAR = 1 2011 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 3 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo February 1, 2011 Woodfin v. Commissioner Docket No. 15060-10S 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. This oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. Section references contained in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This section 6015(e) proceeding is a Small Tax Case conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 and Rules 170 through 175. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed September 2, 2010, and supplemented on October 7, 2010. Respondent's motion as supplemented is based upon the ground -that a final determination denying relief under section 6015 has 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 4 not been issued to either petitioner. As a preliminary matter, we note that respondent's motion as supplemented also proceeds as though this case might also be construed as a proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency in petitioners' 2005 Federal income tax, a deficiency that was determined in a notice of deficiency issued to petitioners on September 1, 2008. See sec. 6213(a). However, a fair reading of the petition, filed July 2, 2010, leads to the conclusion that petitioners, without specifically referencing section 6015(e), rely exclusively upon that section to establish the Court's jurisdiction in this case. Our li conclusion on this point is supported not only by the check mark appearing in paragraph 1 of the petition indicating the nature of this proceeding, but upon statements confirming such an intent made by Meredith Shannon Woodfin (petitioner) at the hearing. We appreciate respondent's efforts to resolve any jurisdictional issues that might arise by the filing of the petition, but under the circumstances we see no need to consider or discuss what we clearly lack, that is, any jurisdiction over the deficiency determined in the above-referenced notice of deficiency. Petitioners' objection to respondent's 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 motion, as supplemented; was filed September 27, 2010. A hearing was conducted on respondent's motion, as supplemented, in Los Angeles, California, on January 24, 2011. Petitioner appeared pro se and argued against the motion. Timothy Berry appeared on behalf of respondent and argued in support of it. There was no appearance by or on behalf of Joshua Michael Woodfin. Our jurisdiction in a section 6015(e) proceeding is acquired in one of two ways. One of those ways requires that a petition be filed not later than 90 days after respondent properly mails to the taxpayer a final determination in response to the taxpayer's request for section 6015 relief. If respondent has not issued a final determination in response to a taxpayer's request for section 6015 relief, then we acquire jurisdiction if the petition is filed not earlier than six months following the date that the taxpayer's request for section 6015 relief is filed (or made) with respondent. See sec. 6015(e) (1) (A); McDaniel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2009-137. Petitioner's request for section 6015 relief from her 2005 Federal income tax liability, apparently made within two years of respondent's first collection 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 6 activity with respect to that liability, was mailed to respondent on December 28, 2009. Because petitioner's request for section 6015 relief was timely mailed, the date it was mailed is treated as the date it was filed, even though the document was not actually received and filed by respondent until January 4, 2010. See sec. 7502; United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 73, 76 (1916). In this case the parties agree that respondent has not issued a final determination as contemplated by section 6015(e) (1) (A) (i) (I) for 2005 to either petitioner for 2005. Furthermore, although his signature appears on the petition, nothing in the record remotely suggests that Joshua Michael Woodfin made a section 6015 request for relief for 2005 at any time preceding the filing of the petition in this case. That being so, we have no jurisdiction over him in this proceeding. As to petitioner, our jurisdiction with respect to her depends upon whether the requisite six month period elapsed between the date that her request for section 6015 relief was filed or made with respondent, that is, December 28, 2009, and the date that the petition was filed with the Court, that is, July 1, 2010. Plugging the relevant dates into the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 statutory scheme it follows that we have jurisdiction with respect to her because more than six months elapsed between those dates. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order will be issued (1) granting respondent's motion as to Joshua Michael Woodfin, (2) denying respondent's motion as to petitioner, and (3) changing the caption to reflect the foregoing. . This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:31 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 . // 20 21 22 23 24 25 // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888