TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Alan Wininger
Docket Number: 26555-07
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/19/2008
Pages: 15

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 t4'1 6/f>ar ALAN WININGER, Petitione r V . Docket No . 26555-07 . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) STAT . Respondent O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice an d Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Cour t shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy transcript of the hearing of the above Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at Washingto containing his oral findings of fact an conclusion of the hearing . f the pages of th e ase before Special Trial D .C ., on April 30, 2008, opinion rendered at th e In accordance with the oral findin s of fact and opinion, an Order and Order of Dismissal for Lack o Jurisdiction will be entered . (Signed) Robert N. Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e DATED : Washington, D .C . May 19, 2008 SERVED MAY 2 2 2008 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Jtidge Robert N . Armen, Jr . 2 April 30, 200 8 3 Wininger v . Commissioner Docket No . 26555-0 7 4 5 THE COURT : The Court has ; decided to render oral 6 findings of fact and opinion in his case and th e 7 following represents the Court's oral findings of fac t 8 and opinion . The oral findings f fact and opinion shall 9 not be relied upon as precedent n any other case . 10 This proceeding was hear, as a regular cas e 11 pursuant to the provisions of se tion 7443(A)(b)(4) o f 12 the Internal Revenue Code of 198 as amended , and Rules 13 180, 181 and 182 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 14 Procedure . This bench opinion i made pursuant to the 15 authority granted by section 74519(b) of the Interna l 16 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and Rule 152 of the Tax 17 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 18 Hereinafter in this bend opinion, and unless 19 otherwise indicated, all section numbers refer to the 20 Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule numbers 21 refer to the Tax Court Rules ofiPractice and Procedure . 22 Kevin Gillin appeared on behalf of Respondent . There was 23 no appearance by or on behalf of Petitioner . 24 This case is before the Court on ( 1) Respondent's 25 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 11, 2008, and (2) Petitioner ' s Motion to Restrai n 2 Collection, filed November 19, 207 . Petitioner resided 3 in Brooklyn, New York, at the time that the petition wa s 4 filed with the Court . The facts relevant to the 5 disposition of the parties ' moti1ns are as follows : 6 Petitioner failed to file Federaf income tax returns for 7 2000, 2001 and 2002 . 1 8 By separate notices each dated November 14, 2005 , 9 Respondent determined deficiencies in Petitioner' s 10 Federal income taxes for 2000, 21001 and 2002 together 11 with additions to tax under section 6651 ( a)(1) fo r 12 failure to file, under section 6'1651 ( a)(2) for failure to 13 pay tax , and under § 6654(a) for failure to pay estimated 14 tax for each of those years . Each of the notices stated 15 as follows : "Last Date to Petition Tax Court : Februar y 16 14, 2006 . " 17 Respondent sent the notices of deficiency to 18 Petitioner by certified mail addressed to him at 137 5 19 Coney Island Avenue, PBM 149, Brooklyn, New York 11230 . 20 We shall hereinafter refer to this address as the 21 Brooklyn address . Petitioner did not file a petition for 22 redetermination with this Court . See section 6213(a) . 23 Accordingly, Respondent assessed the deficiencie s 24 in tax and additions to tax, together with statutory 25 interest, see section 6213(c), and sent Petitione r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 statutory notices of balance due,li i .e ., notice and demand 2 for payment, see § 6303(a) . Petitioner did not pay th e 3 amounts owing . O n 4 August 21, 2006, Respondent sentlPetitioner a Fina l 5 Notice/Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of your Righ t 6 to a Hearing (final notice) . Sep sec . 6330(a) . 7 The final notice reflected Petitioner's outstanding liabilities for 2000, 2001 and 2002 . 9 Respondent sent the final noticelto Petitioner by 10 certified mail addressed to him at the Brooklyn address . 11 Petitioner received the final notice . The 30th day afte r 12 the mailing of the final notice was Wednesday, September 13 20, 2006 . On September 25, 2006' Respondent receive d 14 from Petitioner a Form 12153, Request for a Collection 15 Due Process Hearing, in respect of the final notice . 16 In the Form 12153, Petitioner listed his address 17 as the Brooklyn address, and he identified 2000, 2001 and 18 2002 as the taxable years in iss .ie . Opposite hi s 19 signature on the Form 12153, Petitioner placed the dat e 20 September 21, 2006, which date was a Thursday . 21 Petitioner mailed the form to Respondent by regula r 22 first-class mail . The postmark appearing on the envelope 23 in which the form was mailed i s 24 September 22, 2006, which date Was a Friday . 25 Respondent's Office of Appeals determined that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 Petitioner failed to timely file the Form 12153, see 2 section 6330, and offered him a,,so-called equivalen t 3 hearing in lieu of the so-called collection due process 4 (CDP) hearing . See sec . 301 .630-1(i) Procedural and 5 Administrative Regs . Ultimately, on May 22, 2007 , 6 Respondent's Office of Appeals sent Petitioner a Decision 7 Letter Concerning Equivalent Hearing Under section 632 0 8 and/or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code (decisio n 9 letter) . 10 The decision letter, which was mailed t o 11 Petitioner at the Brooklyn address, stated, in part, as 12 follows : " The case is being returned to ACS [Automated 13 Collection System] in Compliance to continue with their 14 collection determination . In your request for a CD P 15 hearing [Form 12153], you raised issues of moral , 16 religious, political, constitutional, conscientious, or .17 other frivolous objections to collection of you r 18 liabilities . 19 "These objections are without merit and have been 20 repeatedly rejected by the Courts . I gave you a n 21 opportunity to present non-frivolous arguments by letter . 22 You declined the opportunity ." O n 23 November 19, 2007, Petitioner filed with this Court a 24 petition for lien or levy action (collection action) . 25 See sec . 6330(d) ; Rules 330-334', . In the petition , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 Petitioner listed his address as' the Brooklyn address . 2 The petition arrived at the Court by certifie d 3 mail in an envelope bearing an irradiated Postal Service 4 postmark date that appears to be November 13, 2007 . (The 5 month and year are clear . Only the day is ambiguous . ) 6 The return address on the envelope is the Brookly n 7 address . 8 Petitioner attached to the petition, as an 9 exhibit, a copy of a notice dated October 3, 2007, from 10 the Financial Management Service of the Department of the 11 Treasury advising Petitioner that the Internal Revenue 12 Service had levied on Petitioner's Social Securit y 13 benefit . Concurrent with the filing of the petition, 14 Petitioner filed his motion to restrain collection . 15 Petitioner's petition and motion are factuall y 16 inaccurate in alleging that Respondent did not sen d 17 Petitioner any notice of deficiency or any final notic e 18 of intent to levy . As indicated, Respondent filed a 19 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on March 11, 20 2008 . 21 In the motion, Respondent moves that this case be 22 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that 23 "(1) no notice of determination under I .R .C . § 6320 or § 24 6330 was sent to Petitioner for, tax years 2000, 2001 and 25 2002, and (2) the petition was not filed within the tim e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 prescribed by I .R .C . § 6213(a) or § 7502, nor ha s 2 Respondent made any other determination with respect to 3 Petitioner's 2000, 2001 and 2002 tax years . " 4 Each party filed an objection to the other party's 5 motion . Thereafter, pursuant to notice a hearing wa s 6 held in Washington, D .C ., on April 30, 2008 . Counsel for 7 Respondent appeared and was heard . In contrast, ther e 8 was no appearance by or on behalf of Petitioner, nor did 9 Petitioner file any written statement pursuant to Rul e 10 50(c) in lieu of appearance . 11 Necessarily, we turn first to Respondent ' s motion 12 to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction . The Tax Court is a 13 Court of limited jurisdiction . , See sec : 7442 . 14 Accordingly, we may exercise jurisdiction only to the 15 extent expressly authorized by statute . Breman v . 16 Commissioner , 66 T .C . 61, 66 (1$76) . 17 In addition, jurisdictiojn must be prove n 18 affirmatively, and a party invoking our jurisdiction 19 bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdictio n 20 over the party's case . See Fehrs v . Commissioner , 65 21 T .C . 346, 348 (1975) ; Wheeler'slPeachtree Pharmacy, Inc . 22 23 v . Commissioner , 35 T .C . 177, 1l$0 (1960 ) ; National Commission to Secure Justice, et cetera v . Commissioner , 24 27 T .C . 837, 839 (1957) . 25 In order to meet this burden, the party must Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to ou r 2 jurisdiction . See Wheeler's Pell'chtree Pharmacy, Inc . v . 9 3 4 5 6 Commissioner , supra at 180 ; Cono'olidated Co . v . Commissioner , 15 B .T .A . 645, 65] (1929) . Lien or Levy Actio n 7 In the petition filed November 19, 2007 , 8 Petitioner characterizes this case as a lien or levy 9 action (collection action), and , he identifies th e 10 document in respect of which he appealed as a notice 11 dated October 3, 2007, from the 'Financial Managemen t 12 Service of the Department of the Treasury advising him o f 13 an IRS levy on his Social Security benefit . 14 In a collection action,i .e ., a lien or levy 15 action, this Court's jurisdiction under sections 6320 and 16 6330 depends in part on the issuance of a notice o f 17 determination by Respondent's Office of Appeals after the 18 taxpayer has requested a so-called collection due process 19 (CDP) hearing following the issuance by Respondent' s 20 Collection Division of either a, final notice of intent t o 21 levy, see sec . 6330(a), or a notice of filing of federal 22 tax lien, see sec . 6320(a) . See Sarrell v . Commissioner , 23 117 T .C . 122, 125 (2001) ; Moorhous v . Commissioner , 116 24 T .C . 263, 269 (2001) ; Offiler v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 25 492, 498 (2000) ; see also Rulel,330(b) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 0 1 As stated, the only exhibit attached to th e 2 petition in this case is the October 3, 2007, notice fro m 3 the Financial Management Service ' of the Department of the 4 Treasury advising of a levy . This document is not , 5 however , a notice of determination within the meaning o f 6 § 6330 . 7 Indeed, the record demonstrates that Respondent's 8 Office of Appeals has not made any determinatio n 9 regarding either a proposed levy or a notice of federal 10 tax lien and has not sent Petitioner any notice o f 11 determination within the meaning of § 6330 for 2000, 200 1 12 or 2002 . 13 In contrast, Respondent's Office of Appeals did 14 conduct an equivalent hearing and did ultimately issue a 15 decision letter . However, a decision letter is not a 16 notice of determination, and a decision letter unlike a 17 notice of determination does no serve to vest this Court 18 with jurisdiction . 19 A request for a so-called collection due proces s 20 (CDP) hearing, which is typically made on a Form 1215 3 21 and is made in respect of either a final notice of intent 22 to levy or a notice of filing of Federal tax lien, mus t 23 be filed by the taxpayer within a prescribed period of 24 time . See secs . 6320(a), 6330( :a) . 25 If such a request is not filed within the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 11 1 statutory period, then Respondent's Office of Appeals is 2 neither obliged to offer the taxpayer a CDP hearing nor 3 obliged to issue a notice of determination pursuant to § 4 6320 and/or 6330 . Kennedy v . Commissioner, 116 T .C . 255, 5 258-263 (2001) ; Moorhous v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 263 , 6 267-271 (2001) ; sec . 301 .6320-1(1.)(1) Procedural and 7 Administrative Regs ; sec . 301 .63$0-1(i)(1), Procedura l 8 and Administrative Regs . 9 However , as an accommodation , Respondent ' s Office 10 of Appeals typically offers the taxpayer a so-calle d 11 equivalent hearing and then issues a decision letter . 12 Id . A decision letter is not a notice of determination, 13 nor is a decision letter appealable to this Court . Id . 14 In the present case, the record demonstrates tha t 15 Petitioner's Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due 16 Process Hearing, was received by Respondent in a n 17 envelope bearing a postmark date of Friday, September 22 , 18 2006 . 19 Unfortunately for Petitioner, the 30th day after 20 the issuance of the final notice on August 21, 2006, was 21 Wednesday, September 20, 2006 . Thus, the Form 12153 was 22 untimely filed, and Respondent's Office of Appeals was 23 not obliged to and therefore did not conduct a CD P 24 hearing, but rather offered only an equivalent hearing . 25 Petitioner alleges that :ithe final notice was not Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 12 1 mailed to him at his last known address . If true, this 2 matter would be consequential . See Buffano v . 3 Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2007-32 . ~ However, apart from 4 the fact that Petitioner has never even identified wha t 5 he thinks his last known address Was on August 21, 2006, 6 much less proven that matter, seej Yusko v . Commissioner , 7 89 T .C . 806, 808 (1987), the fact of the matter is that 8 at all relevant times, Petitioner has utilized th e 9 Brooklyn address . 10 In short, we are satisfied that the Brookly n 11 address was Petitioner's last known address at the time 12 that the final notice was mailed to and received by him . 13 14 Deficiency Actio n 15 The record demonstrates that in separate notices 16 dated November 14, 2005, Respondent determine d 17 deficiencies in and additions to~Petitioner's income 18 taxes for 2000, 2001 and 2002 . 19 In the petition, Petitioner challenges thos e 20 liabilities . Accordingly, we consider whether we might 21 have jurisdiction in the present'll case to redetermine th e 22 deficiencies and additions to tax pursuant to our 23 deficiency jurisdiction . In an action for the 24 redetermination of a deficiency, the Court's jurisdiction 25 under § 6213(a) depends on the issuance by the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 3 1 Commissioner of a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer 2 and the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer . 3 Frieling v . Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 46 (1983) ; Rule 4 13 (a) . 5 Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes th e 6 Commissioner after determining a' deficiency, to send a 7 notice of deficiency to the taxpayer by certified or 8 registered mail . It is sufficient for jurisdictiona l 9 purposes if Respondent mails the notice of deficiency t o 10 the taxpayer at the taxpayer' s "last known address ." 11 Sec . 6212(b) ; Frieling v . Commissioner , supra at 52 . 12 If a notice of deficiency is mailed to th e 13 taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known address, actua l 14 receipt of the notice is immaterial . King v . 15 Commissioner , 857 F .2d 676, 679 '(9th Cir . 1988) , 16 affirming 88 T .C . 1042 (1987) ; Ylusko v . Commissioner , 17 supra at 810 ; Frieling v . Commissioner , supra at 52 . The 18 taxpayer in turn has 90 days frdm the date that th e 19 notice of deficiency is mailed to file a petition in this 20 Court for a redetermination of the deficiency . Sec . 21 6213(a) . 22 A petition that is timely mailed is deemed to be 23 timely filed . It is clear in tie present case tha t 24 Respondent mailed notices of deficiency for 2000, 200 1 25 and 2002 to Petitioner on November 14, 2005 . Se e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 4 1 Magazine v . Commissioner , 89 T .C .j321, 327 n .8 (1987) , 2 holding that Postal Service Form '877, or its equivalent, 3 represents direct evidence of they date of mailing of the 4 notice of deficiency . 5 Therefore, the 90-day period within whic h 6 Petitioner was required to file his petition with the 7 Court expired on Tuesday , February 14, 2006 . See § 8 6213 ( a), last sentence , providing that any petition filed 9 with the Tax Court on or before the last date specified 10 for filing such petition by the Commissioner in th e 11 notice of deficiency shall be treated as timely filed ; 12 Sec . 7503 regarding the time for performance of act s 13 where the last day otherwise falls on a Saturday, Sunday 14 or legal holiday . 15 However, Petitioner did 'not file a petition with 16 this Court until November 19, 20107, a date well after the 17 expiration of the critical 90-day period . Moreover, the 18 petition arrived at the Court in an envelope bearing a n 19 irradiated Postal Service postmark date that appears to 20 be November 13, 2007, once again a date well after th e 21 expiration of the critical 90-day period . 22 Under these circumstances, the petition was no t 23 timely filed and the Court lacks jurisdiction to 24 redetermine Petitioner's liability for the deficiencies 25 and additions to tax for the taxable years at issue . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 5 1 Petitioner alleges that the notices of deficiency were 2 not mailed to him at his last known address . If true , 3 this matter would be consequential . See Pietanza v . 4 Commissioner , 92 T .C . 729 (1989),'affirmed without 5 published opinion 935 F .2d 1282 ('i3d Cir . 1991) . 6 However, apart from the fact that Petitioner has 7 never even identified what he thinks his last know n 8 address was on November 14, 2005, ; much less proven that 9 matter, see Yusko v . Commissionelt , 89 T .C . 806, 80 8 10 (1987), the fact of the matter is that at all relevant 11 times, Petitioner has utilized the Brooklyn address . I n 12 short, we are satisfied that theBrooklyn address was 13 Petitioner's last known address at the time that the 14 notices of deficiency were mailed to him . 15 We turn now to Petitioneri's motion to restrain 16 collection filed November 19, 2007 . We shall deny 17 Petitioner's motion on the ground that we lac k 18 jurisdiction to decide it on its' merits . In that regard, 19 section 6330(e)(1) provides in relevant part that, "[T]he 20 Tax Court shall have no jurisdiction * * * to enjoin any 21 action or proceeding unless a timely appeal has bee n 22 filed * * * and then only in respect of the unpaid tax or 23 proposed levy to which the determination being appealed 24 relates ." (emphasis added ) 25 Thus, in the absence of 4 notice of determination Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 6 1 and a timely-filed petition filed in respect thereof, se e 2 3 Sarrell v . Commissioner , supra ; Moorhous v . Commissioner , supra ; Offiler v . Commissioner , u ra ; see also Rul e 4 330(b), this Court lacks jurisdiction to enjoi n 5 collection by the Commissioner . In sum, we hold that the 6 Court lacks jurisdiction in this'; case . 7 Accordingly, we shall enter an Order and Order o f 8 Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction 1) granting 9 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 10 filed March 11, 2008, and dismissing this case, if viewe d 11 as a lien or levy action (collection action), on th e 12 ground that Respondent's Office of Appeals has not sent 13 Petitioner a notice of determination as to any of the 14 years in issue, and, if viewed as an action fo r 15 redetermination, on the ground that the petition was not 16 timely filed, and 2) denying Petitioner's Motion t o 17 Retrain Collection, filed November 19, 2007 . 18 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fac t 19 and opinion in this case . 20 (Whereupon, at 11 :28 a .tin ., the bench opinion in 21 the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888