TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Willie C. Cooper
Docket Number: 19205-09L
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/01/2010
Pages: 7

IIgneop -Z e kvzu UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 WILLIE C . COOPER , Petitioner, v . ) Docket No . 19205-09L COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . 0 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 Atlanta, . Georgia , on May 10, 2010, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order will be entered granting respondent's motion dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction . (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . June 1, 2010 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 Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzz o Cooper v . Commissioner Docket No . 19205-09 L May 10, 201 0 THE COURT : The Court has decided to rende r oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, an d the following represents the Court's oral findings o f fact and opinion . Section references contained in this benc h opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a s amended, in effect for the relevant period . The rul e references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice o f Procedure . Pursuant to an order dated March 5, 2010 , this Section 6330(d) case, assigned pursuant to the provisions of Section 7443A(b)(4) of the Interna l Revenue Code of .1986, as amended, is being conducte d in accordance with Rules 180, 181, and 182 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Interna l Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of th e Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . This case is before the Court on Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack o f jurisdiction filed October 1, 2009 . Petitioner' s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 objection to Respondent 's motion was filed October 22, 2IOCA Ott- 2 [sic] . Respondent ' s response to Petitioner' s 3 objection was filed December 9, 2009, and Petitioner's 4 reply to Respondent ' s response was filed December 28, 5 2009 . 6 A hearing was conducted on Respondent' s 7 motion on May 3, 2010 , in Atlanta , Georgia . Shanno n 8 Loechel appeared on behalf of Respondent and presented 9 argument in support of the motion . An individual not 10 admitted to practice before the Court, who identified 11 himself as Petitioner ' s brother , appeared and advised 12 the Court that Petitioner was ill and could not attend 13 the hearing . At the conclusion of the hearing , 14 Respondent's motion was taken under advisement . 15 The facts relevant to the disposition o f 16 Respondent ' s motion are :easily summarized . The years 17 addressed in the motion and as placed in dispute i n 18 the petition are 2000, 2002 , and 2004 . Petitioner had 19 been issued a notice of deficiency for each of those 20 years, but to the extent there remains an unpai d 21 federal income tax liability for any of those years, 22 that liability is based upon a tax reported on 23 Petitioner ' s untimely filed federal income tax return 24 for that year, not the amount determined in the notice 25 of deficiency . This point seems to have been lost on Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 Petitioner . 2 Respondent ' s records establish that by 3 letter dated March 25, 2008, Petitioner was notified 4 that Respondent filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lie n 5 (NFTL ) with respect to the above - referenced federa l 6 income tax liabilities . See Section 6320 ( a) . In that 7 letter he was also advised of his right to request an 8 administrative hearing . See Section 6320 ( a)(3)(B) . 9 As best as we can determine from the record, 10 Petitioner ' s claim that " notices" were not mailed to 11 his last known address relates to the address o r 12 addresses to which the above-referenced notices o f 13 deficiency were mailed, not the notice advising him of 14 the filing of the NFTL . That letter was clearly sent 15 to his proper address . 16 His untimely request for administrativ e 17 hearing in response to that letter entitled him onl y 18 to what is referred to as an "equivalent hearing," 19 which took place and resulted in a Decision Letter 20 Concerning Equivalent Hearing Under Section 6320 21 and / or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code date d 22 July 11 , 2009 ( the Decision Letter) . 23 The Decision Letter is attached to hi s 24 petition . Construing the petition broadly, it appears 25 that in this proceeding Petitioner challenges only the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 existence or the amounts of the underlying 2 liabilities . See Sections 6320(c) and 6330(c) . 3 According to Respondent's motion, the Court 4 is without jurisdiction over any year placed i n 5 dispute in this case because Respondent has not issued 6 to Petitioner a notice contemplated by Section 6330(d) 7 for any of those years . 8 The Tax Court is a court of limite d 9 jurisdiction . See Section 7442 . Accordingly, we may 10 exercise jurisdiction only to the .extent expressly 11 authorized by statute . Breman v . Commissioner , 6 6 12 T .C . 61, 66 (1976) . In addition, jurisdiction must be 13 proven affirmatively, and a party invoking ou r 14 jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have 15 jurisdiction over the party's case . See Fehrs v . 16 17 Commissioner , 65 T .C . 346, 348 (1975) ; Wheeler' s Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc . v Commissioner , 35 T .C . 177, 18 180 (1960) . In order to meet this burden, the party 19 must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to 20 our jurisdiction . See Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, 21 Inc . v Commissioner , supra , at 180 . 22 Our jurisdiction in a Section 6330(d) case 23 depends upon the issuance of what is generally titled 24 as a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection 25 Action(s) under Section 6320 and/or Section 6330 Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 Ci 7 1 (commonly referred to as a notice of determination ) 2 and a timely petition for review filed in response to 3 such notice . Goza v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 176, 182 4 (2000 ) ; Lundsford v . Commissioner , 117 T .C . 159, 161 5 (2001 ) . As we have previously noted, the "notice of 6 determination provided for in Section 6330 is, from a 7 jurisdictional perspective , the equivalent of a notic e .8 of deficiency ." Offiler v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 9 492, 498 ( 2000) . 10 In this case, it is clear that a notice of 11 determination , as contemplated by Section 6330(d), has 12 not been issued to Petitioner for 2000, 2002 or 2004 . 13 Furthermore , it is well ; established that a Decisio n 14 Letter does not, in and of itself , provide the basis 15 for a petition to this Court . See Kennedy v . 16 17 Commissioner , 116 T .C . 255 , 263 (2001) ; Moorhous v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 263 , 270 (2001) . 18 Because it is clear that Petitioner did not 19 make a timely request for an administrative hearing i n 20 response to the notice that the NFTL had been filed, 21 we need not consider whether the Decision Lette r 22 attached to the petition is the equivalent of the 23 notice of determination required under Sectio n 24 6330 ( d) . See Craig v . Commissioner , 119 T .C . 252 25 (2002) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 In the absence of (1) a timely request for 2 an administrative hearing made in response to a final 3 notice to proceed with collection with respect to a 4 given year, and (2) a notice of determination issued 5 following administrative consideration, this Cour t 6 cannot acquire jurisdiction over that year in a 7 Section 6330(d) proceeding . 8 Because Respondent had not issued a notice 9 of determination to Petitioner for any year placed in 10 dispute in this case, Respondent's motion to dismiss 11 for lack of jurisdiction filed October 1, 2009, will 12 be granted . 13 To reflect the foregoing, an appropriat e 14 order will be issued . This concludes the Court's oral 15 findings of fact and opinion in this case . 16 (Whereupon, at 10 :50 a .m, the bench opinion 17 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 18 1 9 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888