TAX COURT OPINION

Case: John A. Goldman
Docket Number: 9596-16
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/28/2017
Pages: 7

SEC UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 JOHN A. GOLDMAN, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 9596-16 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ORDER 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 Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at San Francisco, California, 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 denying petitioner's motion for summary judgment, filed September 16, 2016, will be issued. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 28, 2017 SERVED Mar 29 2017 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. 2 Carluzzo 3 March 16, 2017 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 John A. Goldman v. Commissioner Docket No. 9596-16 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 (bench opinion). Section references made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1996, 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. The order to be entered in this case shall not be treated as precedent for any other case and, except as provided in Rule 152(c), this bench opinion shall not be cited as authority. This case for the redetermination of a deficiency is before The Court on Petitioner's motion for summary judgment filed September 16, 2016. 24 Respondent's objections to Petitioner's motion are 25 embodied in his response filed October 11, 2016. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 By order dated October 26, 2016, 2 Petitioner's motion was assigned to me for 3 4 5 disposition. See Section 7443A(b)(7) Rule 180. By order dated December 1, 2016, Petitioner's motion was set for hearing on March 14, 2017, in San Francisco, 6 California, Petitioner's requested place of trial. 7 The hearing was conducted as scheduled. 8 Gregory R. Wilson appeared on behalf of Petitioner 9 and argued in support of the motion. Bryant W. H. 10 11 12 13 Smith appeared on behalf of Respondent and opposed it. Petitioner also appeared at the hearing. After counsel were heard at the request of his attorney and with permission of The Court, 14 Petitioner made a statement in support of the motion 15 in which he recited various facts that are, for the 16 most part, not in dispute. Some of the facts 17 Petitioner recited, as well as other facts referenced 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in Petitioner's submissions in support of the motion, are summarized below. In a notice of deficiency dated January 28, 2016, (notice) Respondent determined a substantial deficiency in Petitioner's 2012 federal income tax and imposed a Section 6662(a) penalty. A copy of the notice is attached to the petitioner. Before proceeding further, we should point 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 out that in his motion, Petitioner requests that The Court find that the notice is invalid. In that regard, the relief sought in the motion speaks more to The Court's jurisdiction than it does to 5 Petitioner's entitlement to decision as a matter of 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 law. And Petitioner's motion might more properly be characterized as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989). (Both a valid notice of deficiency and a timely petition are essential to The Court's jurisdiction in a case for the redetermination of a deficiency.) Under the circumstances, however, we need not concern ourselves with the manner in which the 15 motion is styled as the respective positions of the 16 17 18 parties operate to resolve their dispute regardless of how the motion is characterized. And the impetus of that dispute involves the number of times that 19 Petitioner's federal income tax returns have been 20 21 audited over a relatively short time. According to Petitioner, the selection of 22 Petitioner's 2012 return for examination violates 23 Respondent's repetitive examination guidelines as 24 well as at least two of Respondent's published policy 25 statements. This is so, according to Petitioner, 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com . Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 because the examinations of his returns for several previous years resulted in no changes or in small adjustments, and the examinations of those previous years involved the same issues or adjustments involved in 2012. Respondent disagrees with Petitioner's use of the word "small" to characterize the adjustments made in previous years and further suggests that the examinations for previous years involved issues different from the issues for 2012. The disagreement between the parties on either point might be a sufficient ground to deny the 13 motion if either fact were considered material, but 14 15 16 17 18 19 as we see it neither is. Instead, we proceed to resolve the motion by considering whether Petitioner is entitled to the relief he seeks as a matter of law. For the following reasons, we find that he is not. We first address an argument advanced in 20 Petitioner's motion, but not addressed at the 21 22 23 24 25 hearing, that is, whether the issuance of the notice violates the provisions of Section 7811. This argument is easily rejected. In the absence of a taxpayer assistance order as contemplated by that section, no relief is available to Petitioner under 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 Section 7811. There was no taxpayer assistance order issued with respect to the examination of 4 Petitioner's 2012 return, and we note that Petitioner 5 does not claim that there was. Consequently, 6 Petitioner's challenge to the validity of the notice 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 cannot be supported under Section 7811. Furthermore, assuming for purposes of the pending motion and without making any finding on the point that Respondent issued the notice in violation of the Internal Revenue Manual and/or a published policy statement, with the exception of instances that implicate an individual's constitutional rights, we have found no authority to support Petitioner's claim that Respondent's failure to adhere to its own 16 manual provisions or published policy statements 17 18 19 20 renders a notice of deficiency invalid. Every authority called to our attention or uncovered on our own suggests otherwise. See e.g. Fargo v. Commissioner, 447 F.3d 706, 713 (9th Circuit 2006), 21 Riland v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 185 (1982), Tucker v. 22 23 24 25 Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1983-210, Chapman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1982-68. It follows that the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the notice do not support 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 a finding that the notice is invalid. That being so, an appropriate order denying Petitioner's motion will be issued. This concludes The Court's bench opinion in this matter. (Whereupon, at 10:38 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