TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Ronald J. Lavigne
Docket Number: 943-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/16/2008
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT Washington , D .C . 2021 7 RONALD J . LAVIGNE, Petitioner, v . Docket No . 943-07 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 petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo at Burlington, Vermont, on May 2, 2008, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be under Rule 155 . (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . May 16, 2008 SERVED MAY 2 0 2000 2 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo 2 May 2, 200 8 3 Ronald J . Lavigne Docket No . 943-07S 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the 6 following represents the Court's oral findings of fact 7 and opinion . The oral findings of fact and opinio n 8 shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other 9 case . 10 This proceeding for the redetermination of a 11 deficiency is a Small Tax Case conducted pursuant to 12 the provisions of Section 7463 of the Internal Revenue 13 Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of 14 the 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 internal 17 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 18 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 19 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, section 20 references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 21 as amended, in effect for 2002 . Rule references are 22 to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 23 Ronald J . Lavigne appeared pro se . Jamie J . 24 Song appeared on behalf of Respondent . 25 In a notice of deficiency dated October 2, Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 3 1 2007, Respondent determined a deficiency in an d 2 additions to tax with respect to Petitioner's 200 2 3 federal income tax . The parties have agreed to all of 4 the adjustments made in the notice of deficiency . The 5 issue for decision is whether the refund otherwise due 6 to Petitioner for 2002 is barred by the statute o f 7 limitations . 8 Some of the facts have been stipulated and 9 are so found . 10 Petitioner resided in Vermont at the time 11 the petition was filed . Petitioner was employe d 12 during 2002 . His income for that year obligated him 13 to file a federal income tax return . See Sec . 6012 . 14 Taking into account an extension, his 2002 return was 15 due to be filed on or before August 15, 2003 . Se e 16 Secs . 6072 and 6081 . 17 Through income tax withholdings from his 18 wages, Petitioner paid $5,271 in federal income tax 19 for 2002 . As it turns out, his federal income tax 20 liability for that year is $2,689 . He now claims that 21 he is entitled to a refund for the overpayment . 22 Respondent's records suggest that Petitioner 23 did not file a 2002 federal income tax return . 24 Respondent takes the position that the refund now 25 claimed by Petitioner is barred by the statute of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 limitations . See Secs . 6511 and 6512 . 2 Petitioner claims that he mailed his 200 2 3 return prior to the date it was due and his claim for 4 refund is shown on that return . The return, i f 5 mailed, was not sent by certified or registered mail . 6 Nothing in the record suggests that Petitioner mad e 7 any claim for refund other than on the above-described 8 federal income tax return . 9 We first consider whether prior to the date 10 that the notice of deficiency that forms the basis for 11 this case was .i.ssued Petitioner made a claim fo r 12 refund . This requires that we consider whether his 13 2002 return was filed, as he claims that it was . 14 Generally, a document is considered filed 15 with the Internal Revenue Service when it is received 16 by that agency . United States v . Lombardo , 241 U .S . 17 73, 76 (1916) . 18 Actual receipt of a document by the Internal 19 Revenue Service, however, is not always necessary in 20 order to effectuate its filing . We have held tha t 21 proof that a document was properly mailed gives rise 22 to a presumption that the document was delivered to 23 and received by the person to whom it was addressed . 24 Estate of Wood v . Commissioner , 92 T .C . 793, 79 8 25 (1989), affd . 909 F .2d 1155 (8th Cir . 1990) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 This presumption of delivery can operate as 2 a substitute for actual receipt with respect to the 3 filing of a document in situations where the taxpayer 4 can establish that the document has been properly 5 mailed but the Internal Revenue Service denies having 6 received the document . 7 Furthermore, with respect to a taxpayer's 8 federal income tax return, proof that the envelop e 9 that contains the document has been properly addressed 10 and sent by registered or certified mail constituted 11 prima facie evidence that the document was delivered, 12 and therefore, filed . Sec . 7502(c) ; Sec . 301 .7502- 13 1(d)(1), Proced . & Admin . Regs . 14 In situations such as here where Respondent 15 denies receipt of a document, the Court of Appeals for 16 the Second Circuit to which an appeal of this cas e 17 would lie if the decision were appealable, see Sec . 18 7482(b), holds that Section 7502(c) provides th e 19 exclusive means for a taxpayer to establish that . the 20 document has been mailed and thereby filed . Deutsch 21 v . Commissioner , 599 F .2d 44 (2d Cir . 1979) . 22 In the absence of a compelling reason to do 23 otherwise, this Court applies the body of law 24 established by the United States Court of Appeals for 25 the Circuit to which our decision is appealable . See Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 Golsen v . Comm issioner, 54 T .C . 742, 757 (1970), affd . 2 445 F .2d 985 (10th Cir . 1971) . .3 This principle applies even though, as here, 4 the proceeding is conducted under Section 7463 and our 5 decision is not subject to appeal . See Sec . 7463(b) . 6 Because Petitioner did not mail his 200 2 7 return by certified or registered mail, we proceed as 8 though that return, and the claim of refund shown on 9 that return, was not made or filed prior to October 2 , 10 2007, the date that the notice of deficiency that 11 forms the basis for this case was issued . 12 A claim for refund of federal income tax 13 must be made within a specified period of time, see 14 Sec . 6511(a), and the date that the tax was paid or 15 overpaid plays an important role in the determination 16 of the amount of any refund that may be allowed i n 17 proceedings before this Court . See Secs . 6511(b) and 18 6512 . 19 In this case, because Petitioner's 200 2 20 federal income tax was paid entirely by withholdings, 21 the payment is deemed to have been made on April 15, 22 2003 . See Sec . 6513(b) . 23 The various conditions and requirements set 24 forth in Sections 6511 and 6512 are describe d 25 generally and adequately in Respondent's pretrial Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 memorandum and we see little point in repeating that 2 discussion here . 3 Because we proceed as though Petitioner made 4 no claim for refund prior to October 2, 2007, any 5 refund of any overpayment of his 2002 income tax is 6 limited to the overpayment made within three year s 7 prior to that date . See Sec . 6512 ( b)(3)(B) . In this 8 case, Petitioner ' s overpayment was made outside o f 9 that period . Consequently , any refund of that 10 overpayment is barred . 11 It follows that Petitioner is not entitled 12 to any refund of any overpayment of his 2002 federal 13 income tax . 14 To reflect the foregoing and the agreement 15 between the parties with respect to the deficiency, 16 decision will be entered under Rule 155 . 17 This concludes the Court ' s oral findings of 18 fact and opinion in this case . . 19 (Whereupon , at 9 :30 a .m ., the bench opinion 20 in the above - entitled matter was concluded . ) 21 22 // 2 3 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888