TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Mario Roberts
Docket Number: 17083-10S
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/07/2011
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 MARIO ROBERTS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Docket No. 17083-10S. Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is 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 hearing in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 24, 2011, containing his oral findings of the hear ing . fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of In accordance with the oral fact and opinion, respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction will be granted. findings of (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. July 7, 2011 MRED JUL Q 2011 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 3 BENCH OPINION BY JUDGE ROBERT JOSEPH GOEKE MARIO ROBERTS v. COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO.: 17083-10S DATE: June 24, 2010 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This case is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent issued a Notice of Deficiency to the petitioner dated November 2nd, 2009, regarding 2008 Federal income tax. Petitioner maintains that the Notice of Deficiency was not received at petitioner's address. There is no question we do not have jurisdiction in this case because the petition was filed well over 90 days after the issuance of the Notice of Deficiency. The only issue before us is the manner in which the case will be dismissed. That is, whether the case will be dismissed based upon the petitioner's failure to timely file a Petition, or whether the case will be dismissed because respondent Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 4 has not properly issued the Notice of Deficiency. Petitioner initially maintained that this Court should take jurisdiction over this case pursuant to section 6330 based upon a form letter 3340 which was issued to the petitioner. However, petitioner correctly abandoned this position at trial and did not pursue this argument at the hearing which was held on this motion. Petitioner filed a petition with the Court on July 28th, 2010. In this petition, petitioner seeks to have the Court review the liabilities determined by respondent in the previously referred to November 2nd, 2009 Notice of Deficiency. A Notice of Deficiency was not attached to the petition which petitioner filed, but rather the previously referred to letter 3340 was attached. Respondent's position initially, relative to the jurisdiction of this case, was that the petitioner had not produced a Notice of Determination which would confer jurisdiction pursuant to section 6330. As previously stated petitioner does not now contest respondent's position that a Notice of Determination was not issued, and petitioner does not assert that the Court has jurisdiction under section 6330. Rather, petitioner makes the argument that the Notice Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 5 of Deficiency, which was issued in November 2009, was not properly mailed to the petitioner. On October the 18th, 2010, petitioner filed an objection to respondent's motion, which did not deny respondent's allegations as it relates to- the Notice of Determination, but instead alleged that the petitioner did not receive the Notice of Deficiency. Respondent's motion to dismiss offered a certification of mailing of the Notice of Deficiency to petitioner's last known address. That address remains the petitioner's current address. Respondent asserts that the general rule relative to these matters is that a taxpayer's last known address is the address shown on his or her most recently filed income tax return, unless the taxpayer has communicated to the Internal Revenue Service in a clear and concise notice that there is a change of address. Abeles v. Commission 91 T.C. 1019 (1988), Treas. Reg. section 301.6212-2(a). We note that apart from Treasury Regulation references Section references hereinafter will be to the Internal Revenue Code. There's no dispute that the Notice of Deficiency is addressed to petitioner's residence at the time of the mailing of the Notice of Deficiency. Petitioner does not contest that there was any change Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 6 of address. Rather, petitioner simply maintains that he has no recollection of receiving the Notice of Deficiency. Petitioner was called by his counsel to testify at trial and his testimony was merely that he did not recollect receiving the notice in November 2009. However, at the hearing on this motion respondent offered additional evidence in support of respondent's position that the Notice of Deficiency was in fact mailed to petitioner's address, and was in fact even received by the petitioner. Respondent offered correspondence from petitioner's representative which contained, as an attachment, a copy of the Notice of Deficiency. This correspondence was dated in November 2009, and respondent asserted that because the only copy of the Notice of Deficiency was mailed to the petitioner the fact that petitioner's representatives had a copy of the Notice of Deficiency and attached it to their correspondence which was dated November 20th, 2009, demonstrates that petitioner did in fact receive the Notice of Deficiency. Petitioner was allowed to testify and his testimony did not refute the claims of respondent as supported by the exhibit respondent presented at the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 7 hearing, which was admitted to be correspondence from petitioner's then representative dated November 20th, 2009, which in fact did have a faxed copy of the Notice of Deficiency associated with it. The petitioner, in his testimony at the hearing, indicated that his place of employment did have a fax. Given the circumstances of this case we find -that petitioner has failed to establish that respondent did not in fact mail the Notice of Deficiency to the petitioner.and that respondent has establîshed both by the correspondence from petitioner's power of attorney and also by aÔtrack and -1/ confirm document from the U.S. Post Office which demonstrates that the Notice of Deficiency document was in fact delivered to the petitioner on November 5th, 2009. Given these circumstances and the clear record in this case, we reject petitioner's argument that respondent has not established that the Notice of Deficiency was mailed in the normal course of respondent's business. Rather, we think the record is clear in this case that the Notice of Deficiency was mailed and that it was in fact received by the petitioner. Under these circumstances we are left with Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 8 no alternative but to grant respondent's motion to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on the basis of petitioner's failure to timely file a petition seeking redress relative to that Notice of Deficiency. In accord with this bench opinion, an appropriate order will be issued. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 10:26 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888