TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Howard L. & Everlina Washington
Docket Number: 30432-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/19/2008
Pages: 10

Q . GJl/W-e- UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 HOWARD L . AND EVERLINA WASHINGTON, Petitioner s v . ) Docket No . 30432-07S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s 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 hearing of the above case before Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at New York, New York (Westbury) on June 5, 2008, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the hearing . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction will be entered . (Signed) Robert N. Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . June 19, 2008 SERVED JUN 19 2008 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen Jr . 2 June 5, 200 8 3 Washington v . Commissioner Docket No . 30432-07S 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render oral 5 Findings of Fact and opinion in this case, and the 6 following represents the Court ' s Oral Findings of Fac t 7 and Opinion . The oral findings of fact and opinion shall 8 not be relied upon as precedent in any other case . 9 This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Case 10 pursuant to the provisions of Section 7463 ( f)(2) of the 11 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 12 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice an d 13 Procedure . See and compare Rules 330 through 334 of the 14 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 15 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 16 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Interna l 17 Revenue Code of 1986 , as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax 18 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 19 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, and unless 20 otherwise indicated, all section numbers refer to the 21 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and all Rule 22 numbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 23 Procedure . 24 Howard L . Washington and Everlina Washingto n 25 appeared on their own behalf . Marie E . Small appeared on Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 behalf of Respondent . 2 This matter is before the Court on Respondent's 3 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 4 28, 2008 . In his motion, Respondent moves to dismis s 5 this case for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that 6 "there is no statutory or other authority fo r 7 jurisdiction over a Collection Appeals dispute,Por ha s Respondent made any other determination with respect t o 9 taxable years 1994 and 1995 that would confer 10 jurisdiction on this Court . " 11 Because this Court may only hear and decide a case 12 on the merits if the Court has jurisdiction, th e 13 threshold issue for decision is necessarily whether the 14 Court has jurisdiction in the instant case . 15 The facts necessary to a resolution of 16 Respondent's motion are as follows : 17 In October 1999, Respondent sent Petitioners a 18 final notice of intent to levy with respect t o 19 outstanding liabilities for 1994 and 1995 . Petitioners 20 did not file with Respondent a Form 12153, Request for a 21 Collection Due Process Hearing . 22 Accordingly, Respondent's Appeals Office never 23 conducted a so-called collection due process (CDP ) 24 hearing and never issued a notice of determination in 25 respect of the October 1999 final notice . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 In January 2001, Respondent filed a notice o f 2 Federal tax lien in respect of Petitioners ' outstanding 3 liabilities for 1994, 1995, and 1998 . Respondent sent 4 Petitioners a notice of lien filing, and Petitioner s 5 timely filed with Respondent a Form 12153, Request for a 6 Collection Due Proceed Hearing . 7 Ultimately , in August 2001, Respondent ' s Appeals 8 Office sent Petitioners a notice of determination , 9 sustaining the filing of the lien . Petitioners then 10 filed a collection action with this Court at dkt . No . 11 11152-01L . See Sec . 6330(d) . 12 That action led to the publication of a Court- 13 reviewed opinion on March 6, 2003 . Washington v . 14 Commissioner , 120 T .C . 114 ( 2003) . There the Court held 15 that Respondent could proceed with the collection action 16 as determined in the notice of determination with respect 17 to Petitioners ' taxable years 1994, 1995 , and 1998 . 18 In due course , the Court's decision in Washington 19 v . Commissioner , supra , became final . See Sec . 7481(a) . 20 On December 31, 2007, Petitioners filed an imperfec t 21 petition with the Court in the instant case . Thereafter, 22 on January 30, 2008, Petitioners filed an amende d 23 petition . 24 Petitioners' pleadings make clear that thei r 25 action is a lien or levy action (collection action), and Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 the amended petition makes clear that the taxable years 2 in issue are 1994 and 1995 . 3 Exhibits attached to\-,.Petitioners' imperfect 4 petition filed December 31, 2007, include : ( 1) A copy of 5 a certificate of release of Federal tax lien, signe d 6 March 11 , 2007, for 1994 , 1995, and 1998 ; ( 2) a letter, 7 dated November 28, 2007, from Respondent's Automate d 8 Collection System regarding " Overdue Taxes" for 1994 and 9 1995 ; and (3 ) a letter, dated December 18, 2007, fro m 10 Petitioner Howard L . Washington ' s employer regarding a 11 wage levy by Respondent for an unspecified taxable year . 12 The sole exhibit attached to Petitioners ' amended 13 petition is a copy of a letter, dated January 18, 2008, 14 from Respondent ' s Appeals Field Office in Washington , 15 D .C ., regarding Petitioners ' " request for a Collection 16 Appeal ( CAP) hearing concerning the Certificate o f 17 Release of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien and the levy on 18 your wages ." This letter concludes as follows : 19 "In summary , we hold that the Certificate of 20 Release of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien extinguishe s 21 the lien itself, and cthe underlying tax liability . 22 We further hold that the collection statute for the 23 periods at issue is extended until November 5, 2010 . 24 Finally , we find that the levy action , under the FPL P 25 [Federal Payment levy Program] system is appropriate and Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 is sustained by Appeals . " 2 Regarding the propriety of the levy action, th e 3 January 18, 2008 letter rests its conclusion on a finding 4 that a final notice of intent to levy had previously been 5 issued . In that regard, the letter states that "thi s 6 required notice [i .e ., the final notice of intent to 7 levy] was issued October 6, 1999 . There is no 8 requirement for a more current Notice of Intent to Levy 9 to be issued prior to levy action commencing under the 10 FPLP system . " 11 As previously stated, Respondent filed a Motion to 12 Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on March 28, 2008 . 13, Thereafter, on April 17, 2008, Petitioners filed an 14 Objection . 15 Petitioners included as an exhibit to thei r 16 Objection a copy of a release of levy, dated March 24, 17 2008 . The record does not clearly reveal why Respondent 18 issued this release, but it does make clear that the wage 19 levy previously served on Petitioner Howard L . 20 Washington's employer is released . 21 Pursuant to notice, Respondent's motion was called 22 for hearing at a date certain of June 3, 2008, in Ne w 23 York, New York (Westbury Session) . Petitioners and 24 counsel for Respondent appeared and were heard . Counsel 25 acknowledged the aforementioned release of levy . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction . 2 See Sec . 7442 . Accordingly, we may exercise jurisdiction 3 only to the extent expressly authorized by statute . 4 Breman v . Commissioner , 66 T .C . 61, 66 (1976) . 5 In addition, jurisdiction must be prove n 6 affirmatively, and a party invoking our jurisdiction 7 bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction 8 over the party's case . See Fehrs v . Commissioner , 6 5 9 T .C . 346, 348 (1975) ; Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc . 10 11 v . Commissioner , 35 T .C . 177, 180 (1960) ; National Comm . to Secure Justice, Etc .v . Commissioner , 27 T .C . 837, 839 12 (1957) . 13 In order to meet this burden, the party must 14 establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to ou r 15 jurisdiction . See Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc . v . 16 17 18 Commissioner , supra , at 180 ; Consolidated Co . v . Commissioner , 15 B .T .A . 645, 651 (1929) . Lien or Levy Action . In a collection review 19 action, i .e ., a lien or levy action, this Court' s 20 jurisdiction under Sections 6320 and 6330 depends, in 21 relevant part, on the issuance of a notice o f 22 determination by Respondent's Office of Appeals after the 23 taxpayer has requested an administrative hearing 24 following the issuance by Respondent's collection 25 division of either a final notice of intent to levy, see Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 0 1 Sec . 633(cid:127)X(a), or a notice of filing of Federal tax lien , 2 see Sec . 6320 ( a) . See Sarrell v . Commissioner , 117 T .C . 3 122, 125 (2001) ; Mourhous v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 263, 4 269 (2001) ; Offiler v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 492, 498 9 5 (2000) ; see also Rule 330(b) . 6 In the instant case , the record indicates that in 7 October 1999, Respondent sent Petitioners a final notice 8 of intent to levy with respect to outstanding liabilities 9 for 1994 and 1995 . 10 Petitioners did not, however, file with Respondent 11 a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Proces s 12 Hearing, within the statutorily mandated period of time . 13 Accordingly, Respondent's Appeals Office had no reason 14 to, and in fact did not, issue a notice of determination 15 in respect of the October 1999 final notice . 16 In contrast, the record conclusively demonstrates 17 that Respondent's Appeals Officer did issue a notice of 18 determination in August 2001 in respect of Petitioners' 19 request for a CDP hearing following their notification by 20 Respondent of the filing of a Federal tax lien in January 21 2001 for 1994, 1995, and 1998 . 22 Petitioners timely appealed to this Court from 23 that notice of determination, and the Court ultimately 24 decided the disputed issues in a Court-reviewed opinion 25 filed on March 6, 2003, at 120 T .C . 114 . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 0 1 None of the documents attached as exhibits to the 2 imperfect petition constitut S a notice of determinatio n 3 within the meaning of Section 6330 . Likewise, th e 4 January 18, 2008 letter attached as an exhibit to the 5 amended petition does not constitute a notice o f 6 determination within the meaning of Section 6330 . 7 Rather, that letter only resolves Petitioners' request for a Collection Appeal (CAP) Hearing, which is , 9 from a jurisdictional point of view, totally different 10 from, and therefore not, a Collection Due Process (CDP) 11 Hearing . 12 In short, Petitioners had an opportunity to 13 challenge Respondent's proposed levy upon issuance of the 14 final notice in October 1999, but they did not do so ; 15 therefore, Petitioners may not do so now in the instant 16 case . See Sec . 301 .6330-1(b(l), Proced . and Admin . Regs . 17 Petitioners also had an opportunity to challenge 18 the filing of the Federal tax lien in January 2001, and 19 they did so then ; therefore, they may not ~o so again now 20 in the instant case . See Commissioner v . Sunnen , 33 3 21 U .S . 591, 597 (1948) . In view of the foregoing, we hold 22 that this Court lacks jurisdiction in the instant case . 23 In conclusion, we shall grant Respondent's Motion 24 to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 28 , 25 2008, and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 1 1 the ground that, as to the notice of levy sent t o 2 Petitioners in October 1999, no request for a CDP hearing 3 was timely filed with Respondent's Appeals Office so that 4 no notice of determination was ever issued by tha t 5 office, and , as to the notice of Federal tax lien filed 6 in January 2001, Respondent ' s determination in respect of 7 that lien was previously decided by this Court at 12 0 8 T .C . 114 ( 2003) . 9 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact 10 and opinion in this case . 11 (Whereupon , at 9 :56 a .m ., the bench opinion in the 12 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 3 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888