TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Judith Walthers
Docket Number: 16382-07L
Judge: Dean
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 06/15/2009
Pages: 7

T .C . Memo . 2009-13 9 UNITED STATES TAX OURT JUDITH .WALTHERS, Petitioner V . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 16382-07L . Filed June 15, 2009. Judith Walthers, pro se . Kaelyn J . Romeo , for respondent . MEMORANDUM OPINIO N DEAN, Special Trial Judge : This case is before the Court on petitioner's motion to restrain assessor nt or collection -(petitioner's motion) and respondent's otion to dismiss for lac k of jurisdiction (respondent's motion) . All section reference s are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and al l SERVED JUN 1 5 2009 Rule references are ! d the Tax Court Rules of Practice ah d Procedure . Backgroun d Petitione r filed her petition with the Cour t seeking review of respondent' s collection action for 1998 , 2001, and 2002 an d ttachin.g copie s of"l,aNotice of Levy o n Wages, Salary, and Other Income-for 1997 , 1998 ,11 2001 , and 2002 . In the petition h e a, alleges that she never received a final notice of intent, to levy, which would have given her notic e of the opportunity to request a hearing unde r section ,1633 0 befor e collection action proc'e'eded . The Court filed petitioner's motion concurrently with th'e' petition . Respondent objected to petitioner' s motion and moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction on the ground tha t no notice of determination 9~ t as authorized by section 6320 ::or 633 0 has been issued norha s respondent made any other determinatio n S for the years , at issue that would confer jurisdictio n on' the Court . Respondent argue s that the Cour t cannot acquir e Jurisdiction to review a proposed lie n or levy action unless there is a determinatio n by the Office of Appeals and th e taxpayer seeks review ;of the determinatio n within 30 day s thereafter . Respondent alleges that his computer transcripts, copies of he has produced, show that a Letter 1058, Final Notice, I~h Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of our Right to a Hearing (notice), was sent to petitioner by certified mail on June 27 , 2006, relating to tax years 1998, 20.01, and 2002 . According to respondent's records, the notice was "r fused/unclaimed" . Respondent was unable . to produce either a copy of the final notice of intent to levy or a certified mailing list for th e notice . Jurisdiction Discussio n The Tax Court is a court of limit e jurisdiction and ma y exercise that jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress . Naftel v . Commissioner , 85 T .C . 527, 529 (1985) . ' respondent has pointed out .; the jurisdi tion of the Court under sections 6320 and 6330 depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination and the filing fa timely petition fo r review . See Orum v . Commissioner , 123 ~ .C . 1 (2004), affd . 41 2 F .3d 819 (7th Cir . 2005) ; Sarrell v . Commissioner ; 117 T .C . 122 , 125 (2001) ; Moorhous v . Comm issioner , 1 16 T .C . 263, 269 (2001) ; Offiler v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 492, 498 (2000) ; see also Rul e 330(b) . Therefore, in the absence of a notice of determination , this Court lacks jurisdiction . Respondent did not issue a notice of determination in respect of petitioner's outstanding tax liabilities for 1998 , 2001, and 2002 because petitioner did nl of request a hearing under - 4 section 6330 . The Commissioner, however, must first issue a final notice of intent to levy and_ send it to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known address before a hearing is held and th e notice of determination is issued . Sec . 6330(a)(2)(C) . ,The Court does not have jurisdiction to hear petitioner's case, and the only issue to be decided is the proper basis for dismissal . Respondent argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction becaus e petitioner failed to request a hearing under section 6330 ; dismissal on this ground would allow respondent to levy upo n petitioner's property to satisfy her Federal tax liabilities . ,I r Petitioner-argues that ;she never received a valid final notice of intent to levy ; dismissal on that ground would in effec t invalidate the notice of levy . See Kennedy v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 255, 261 (2001) . ; Buffano v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2007- 32 . Section 6331(a)!, provides that if any person liable to pa y any tax neglects or,~refuses to pay . such tax within 10 days after notice"and demand for payment, the Secretary is authorized t o collect such tax byway of a, levy upon the person's property . Section, 6331(d) requires the Secretary, at least 30 days before proceeding with enforced collection by way of a levy on a, person's property, to provide the person with a final notice of intent';to levy, including notice of the administrative appeal s available . See sec t 6330 ; Davis v . Commissioner , 115 T .C . 35, 37 (2000) ; Goza v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 76, 179 (2000) . Th e notice of intent to levy must be given Lin person, left at the person's dwelling or usual place of business, or sent by certified or registered mail to the per on's last known address . Secs . 6330(a)(2), 6331(d)(2) ; secs . 301 6330-1(a)(3_), Q&A-8 , 301 .6331-2(a)(1), Proced . & Admin . Reg s The notice is valid if it is mailed to the taxpayer's last known address even if it is not receive or accepted by th e Cir . 1991), affg . T .C . Memo . 1989-439 ; pnitedStates v . Zolla , 724 F .2d 808, 810 (9th Cir . 1984) ; Steih v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2004-124 . All that remains is fo~ respondent to show that he mailed the notice to petitioner's last known address . The Court has held that compliance with U .S . Postal Service Form 3877 mailing procedures raises a p esumption of official regularity in favor of the Commissioner and . is sufficient, absent evidence to the contrary, to establish that the notice was properly mailed . Coleman v . Comm issioner, 94 T .C . 82, 90-9 1 (1990) ; see also United States v . Zolla, supra at 810 . However, respondent "was unsuccessful in his attempt to locate" the U .S .P .S . Form 3877 . Respondent instead offers as evidence of mailing copies of Forms 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments, and Other Specified Matters, for 1998, 2001, and 2002, that indicate the date of the mailing of the notice and that it was "refused/unclaimed" . Respondent, however, must prove by "direct" evidence the date and fact of mailing the notice to the taxpayer . Coleman v . Commissioner , . supra iat 90 ; Magazine v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 321 , 326-327 (1987) . The Commissioner's presentation of a date- stamped copy of .theno-tice and a file memorandum by an Appeal s officer noting that~ithe notice was returned undeliverable ha s been held to be insufficient to prove statutory certified mailin g requirements . United States v . Wright , 658 F . Supp . 1 (D . Alaska 1986) ., With the proper foundation, computer records may ;,be evidence of correspondence . Haag v . United States , 485 F .3d 1, 3-4 (1st Cir . 2007) ;,' United States v . Hayes , 861 F .2d 1225 (10t h Cir . 1988) . As hasjbeen observed by another court, however, the Form 4340 does not disclose the address to which the letter was sent or that it was sent by certified mail . See Tenpenny v . United States ; 490 F . Supp . 2d 852 (N .D . Ohio 2007) . Respondent has not shown that he mailed the notice to petitioner's last known address by certified mail . Restraint of Collectio n The authority of the Court to restrain collection in a lien or levy action is found in the last sentence of sectio n 6330(e)(1) "The Tax ,Court shall have no jurisdiction under this paragraph to enjoin any action or proceeding unless a timel y 1! appeal has been filed under subsection (d)(1) and then only i n respect of the unpaid tax or proposed lbvy to which th e determination being appealed relates ." Section 6330(e)(1) i s predicated upon the Court's having plenary jurisdiction in a lien or levy action before the Court can enjpin any action or proceeding and then only in respect of he unpaid tax or proposed levy to which the determination being a pealed relates . Lacking any notice of determination, the Court is without jurisdiction to enjoin anything . To reflect the foregoing, An appropriate order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction will be etered and petitioner's motion will be denied .