TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Christian Harvey Chaussee
Docket Number: 14763-22
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/29/2023
Pages: 5

United States Tax Court Washington, DC 20217 Christian Harvey Chaussee, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 14763-22. ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to the Commissioner a copy of the pages of the transcript of the hearing in this case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Seattle, Washington containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which this case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order will be issued. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Served 12/29/23 Bench Opinion by Senior Judge Joseph Robert Goeke December 20, 2023 Christian Harvey Chaussee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 14763-22S 3 JRG 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. This deficiency case is presently before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. In the motion, respondent asserts that petitioner did not timely submit and mail to the Court the petition in the present case. Respondent, at the hearing on this motion, accepted that the petitioner had mailed the petition in a fashion that was timely. Nevertheless, because the issue is before the Court on a jurisdictional question and the parties cannot stipulate to jurisdiction, the Court needs to make an analysis of the facts independent of the parties to determine whether we, in fact, do have jurisdiction. That is the purpose of this bench opinion. In support of petitioner's position, prior to the hearing, petitioner submitted a declaration, under 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 oath, that he mailed the petition on May 21st, 2022. 4 However, at the time of its submission, the facts asserted by petitioner were still in dispute. Only subsequently, in preparation for the hearing, did petitioner present sufficient evidence to document the mailing on May 21st, 2022. In the declaration which the petitioner submitted in support of his position prior to the hearing, the petitioner stated that: "On May 21st, 2022, I purchased proper postage for my petition to be properly mailed from the United States Post Office in Lynnwood, Washington. Upon getting ready to affix the postage I had printed from the kiosk, I realized I had put the wrong address in Andover, Massachusetts. I still am in possession of the incorrect postage label, now knowing that the proper postage for the petition was 98 cents. I affixed two 54 cent Forever stamps for proper postage. On May 21, 2022, at approximately 1 p.m. local time, I placed my petition with sufficient postage and the correct address into the outgoing mail slot inside the lobby of the JRG Lynnwood, Washington United States Post Office. There would be two more mail pickups that day 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 for outgoing mail. My petition was timely filed 5 on May 21st, 2022 from the Lynnwood, Washington United States Post Office." This position by the petitioner was corroborated by documents which he submitted, including evidence to show that he was in the Post Office on that date and that he did, in fact, purchase postage of 98 cents, which is consistent with his position that he originally purchased postage and then realized he had addressed the package 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 incorrectly, and then subsequently mailed the correct 11 package. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It is also corroborated by the envelope, which was received on June 16th, 2022, at the Tax Court. As the respondent notes, this date is 114 days after the mailing of the Notice of Deficiency and but for an analysis under Internal Revenue Code section 7502 would be deemed to be late and would deny the jurisdiction in the present case. However, a careful analysis of the evidence demonstrates the credibility of petitioner's position. Respondent has stated in respondent's motion that based upon their analysis and discussion with U.S. Post Office personnel, as well as other evidence, the estimated time of the package in Washington, DC would have been between June 6th and June 13th, 2022. The fact that this package was three days late and does not overcome the strong evidence that petitioner did, in fact, place it in 6 the mail on May 21st, 2022. We deemed this evidence to be such that we should deem the petition as filed timely and consistent with section 7502. As we said in Sylvan v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 548, 564 (1975), in enacting section 7502, Congress intended to eliminate the random distribution hardships occasioned by inconsistencies in postal performance. We think that, in effect, that sentence directly applies to the current case and accordingly, we, independent of the parties' agreement, acknowledge that the Court does have jurisdiction over the present case and deny the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. This ends the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:58 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