TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Gail Barley Interior Design LLC
Docket Number: 9247-14L
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/02/2015
Pages: 7

CMS UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 GAIL BARLEY INTERIOR DESIGN LLC, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 9247-14 L ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to the determination of the Court as set forth in its bench opinion rendered on March 20, 2015, 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 trial in the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction will be entered. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. April 2, 2015 SERVED Apr 02 2015 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. 2 Carluzzo 3 March 20, 2015 4 Gail Barley Interior Design LLC v. Commissioner 5 6 Docket No. 9247-14L THE COURT: The Court has decided to render 7. oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion (bench opinion). Unless otherwise noted, section references made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. This section 6330(d) proceeding was assigned pursuant to section 7443A(b)(4) and Rule 182. Except as provided in Rule 152(c), this bench opinion shall not be cited as authority. This case is before the Court on what the Court is treating as cross motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We use the word "treating" for reasons that will become clear as we go along. A hearing was conducted on the cross-motions on March 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 18, 2015, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. William C. Bogardus appeared on behalf of respondent. 3 Petitioner was represented by John J. Petito. His 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 role in this case is not without its own controversy separate and apart from the issues that will be addressed in this bench opinion. Mr. Petito describes himself as a "non-attorney" and he is not otherwise admitted to practice before the Court. According to Mr. Petito he is one of two members of petitioner. Respondent points to matters in the record contrary to Mr. Petito's claim. For example, several submissions from petitioner identify petitioner as a single member limited liability company, but petitioner's membership is subject to change from time to time. In a letter to respondent, 16 petitioner's acknowledged member, Gail Barley, 17 18 sometimes shown in the record as "Gail Barle, " referred to Mr. Petito as petitioner ' s "accountant . " 19 Mr. Petito's status as a member of petitioner and its 20 accountant are not necessarily inconsistent. Because 21 Mr. Petito participated in the administrative 22 proceedings that preceded this case (as did Gail 23 Barley), at the hearing the Court advised the parties 24 25 that we would proceed as though Mr. Petito was appearing as an authorized member of petitioner, 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 although we make no finding on the point. We begin our discussion with reference to a 3 Notice of Determination Concerning Collection 4 Action(s) Under Sections 6320 and/or 6330, dated 5 March 24, 2014, (notice), a copy of which is attached 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to the petition. The notice is addressed to "Gail Barley Interior Design, Inc.". It was sent by certified mail to petitioner's last known address, it shows petitioner's Federal tax identification number, and it references Federal tax liabilities respondent claims were owed by petitioner at the time the notice was issued. According to the notice a levy is an appropriate collection action with respect to those liabilities. The petition, sent to the Court by private delivery service on April 24, 2014, was received and filed by the Court on April 25, 2014. Taking into account the date of the notice, the date the petition was filed is beyond the 30 day period specified in section 6330(d)(1). Petitioner acknowledges receipt of the notice on March 26, 2014, and its argument that the petition is timely because the 30 day period should be computed with reference to that date is rejected. See e.g. Rule 25. Otherwise, the parties agree that the Court 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 is without jurisdiction in this case because, according to respondent, the petition was not filed timely, or according to petitioner, because the notice is invalid. See Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000)(the Court's jurisdiction in 6 matters such as this depends upon a valid notice of 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 determination and a timely petition). Petitioner argues that the notice is invalid because it refers to petitioner as "Gail Barley Interior Design, Inc." rather than "Gail Barley Interior Design, LLC". Respondent acknowledges that error and argues that the mistake is merely a typographical error that does not invalidate the notice. Although we do not condone respondent's lack of attention to detail, we are satisfied that the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the notice did not, or should not have 18 mislead petitioner to conclude that the notice was 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not directed to it. See Rio Grande Holding, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-240; Bunyan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-371. At the hearing petitioner argued that it was mislead and did not open the envelop in which the notice was mailed until weeks after it was received because of the existence of a similarly named company 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 in Florida that petitioner claims was under examination at the time. No reference to this other taxpayer is made in any of petitioner's many submissions, all signed by Mr. Petito. A review of 5 petitioner's submissions shows that petitioner 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 exercises little, if any restraint in advancing its position, (for example, in various submissions, respondent's settlement officer is referred to as a "liar", "ignorant" and "unknowledgeable", Internal Revenue Service employees are described as "monkey- see, monkey-do idiots", respondent's counsel is accused of criminal activity, the Court is accused of "manipulating" petitioner's submissions to respondent's advantage, and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is characterized as "smug, impish, childish, and arrogant"). At the risk of understatement, we consider petitioner to be less than shy in advancing arguments it perceives to support it position. If the existence of an examination of a similarly named taxpayer played any role in petitioner's claim to have been mislead by respondent's typographical error, we expect that allegation would have been made before the hearing. Taking into account the presentations made by the parties at the hearing, as well as the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 submissions of the parties filed before the hearing, we find that petitioner was not, or should not have been misled by the incorrect reference to its name in the notice. That being so, we reject petitioner's claim that the notice is invalid. Otherwise, to reflect the foregoing and for reasons set forth in respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, filed September 5, 2014, an appropriate Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction will be entered. This concludes the Court's bench opinion in this matter. (Whereupon, at 9:36 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com