TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Shannon M. Lane
Docket Number: 15442-12L
Judge: Armen
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/02/2013
Pages: 12

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 SEC SHANNON M. LANE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 15442-12L. ) Respondent ) ) ) ORDE R 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 Robert N. Armen, Jr. at Dallas, Texas, on February 13, 2013, containing 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 order and order of dismissal will be entered. (Signed) Robert N. Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 2, 2013 SERVED Mar 05 2013 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N. Armen, Jr. February 13, 2013 .Shannon M. Lane v. Commissioner ·5 Docket No. 15442-12L 6 ' I. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 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. . . II. This proceeding was heard as a regular case pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A (b) (4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 180, 181, and 182 of the Tax Court Rules of 16 Practice and Procedure. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 · III. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Hereinafter in this bench opinion, all section numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended,. and all Rule numbers refer to the Tax 25 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. . . 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company IV. Marty J. Dama appeared on behalf of respondent. There was no appearance by or.on behalf 1 2 3 . .4 of petitioner. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 V. This case represents an action for collection review. See sec. 6330 (d) (1) . The case is presently before the Court on (1) petitioner' s Motion To Restrain Assessment Or Collection And To Order Refund Of Amount Collected, filed June 18, 2012, and (2) respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction, filed August 8, 2012. Petitioner resided in the State of Texas at the time that the petition was filed with the Court. The facts relevant to the disposition of the parties' motions are as follows: 17 Petitioner' s Petition 18 On June 18, 2012, petitioner filed a 19 petition and listed her address therein as "33 Great 20 West Loop, Belton, Texas 76513." We shall 21 22 23 24 25 hereinafter refer to this address as the Belton address. Petitioner attached to her petition a single exhibit, namely, a Notice Of Levy On Wages, dated June 2, 2012. The Notice Of Levy named petitioner as the taxpayer and listed her address as 866.488.DEPO www.CapitaIReportingCompany.com . Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 "1601 Drew Road, SPC 13, El Centro, CA 92243". We shall hereinafter refer to this.address as the El Centro address. The Notice Of Levy referenced the. taxable years 2006, 2007, and 2008, and indicated that nearly $105,000 was due from petitioner for unpaid income taxes and statutory additions. In paragraph 5 of the petition, petitioner alleged, in part, as follows: "Respondent did not issue a. Final Notice of Intent to Levy to petitioner for the tax years 2006, 2007 and 2008 as required by I.R.C. 6330(a) (1). The address on the.Notice of Levy was an address that Petitioner has never resided at. Respondent did not issue a 15 Notice of Deficiency for the tax years 2006,.2007 and 16 17 18 19 -20 21 22 2008 as is required by IRC 6212(a)." In paragraph 6 of the petition, petitioner again alleged, in part, that "Respondent never issued a Final Notice of Intent to Levy to petitioner's last known address as.required by I.R.C. 6330(a) (1)". .Petitioner's Motion To.Restrain Simultaneous with the filing of the 23 petition on June 18, 2012, petitioner.filed a Motion . 24 25 To Restrain Assessment Or Collection And To Order, Refund Of Amount Collected. In the motion, 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com . Capital Reporting Company (cid:16)042 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 petitioner stated that she did. not receive a final notice öf intent to levy for 2006, 2007, and 2008. Regarding the El Centro address, petitioner stated that she "has never resided at this address [and] has never even visited El Centro, CA." Petitioner also . repeated her statement that "Respondent never properly issued petitioner a Final Notice to petitioner' s last . known address as required by IRC § 6330 (a) (1)". Respondent' s Objection to Petiitioner' s Motion On July 11, 2012, respondent filed an . 12 Objection to petitioner's motion. In his Objection, 13 14 respondent stated that the El Centro address was petitioner's last known address "on file with 15 . respondent", but respondent did not explain the basis 16 17 for that. statement. Respondent attached as exhibits to his 18 Objection copies of notices of deficiency for 2006, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2007, and 2008, each of which was addressed to petitioner at the El Centro address. Each notice determined a deficiency based on information reported by third partie.s, which information was attached to the notice. Thus, for 2006, there were two W-2s and two 1098s; all 4 listed petitioner's address. as the Belton address. For 2007, there were two W-2s, two . 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 1098s, and one 1099-R; both W-2s and the 1099-R listed petitioner's address as the Belton address, whereas one 1098 listed the El Centro address and the other 1098 listed an address strikingly similar to, 5. but not identical to, the Belton address. For 2008, 6 7 8 9 10 11 there were one W-2 and two 1098s; the W-2 listed the Belton address, whereas one 1098 listed the El Centro address and the other 1098 listed an unrelated address in Belton, Texas. Respondent's Motion To Dismiss On August 8, 2012, respondent filed a 12 Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction. In his 13 motion, respondent contends that this case should be 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.on the ground that no notice of determination.was sent to petitioner for 2006, 2007, and 2008, nor did respondent make any other determination with respect to those years that would confer jurisdiction on the Court. Respondent . attached to his motion exhibits proving that notices of deficiency for 2006, 2007, and 2008, had been sent to petitioner at the El Centro address. However, the record does not disclose whether petitioner ever received those notices of deficiency and she implies that she did not. 25 Petitioner's Objection 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 · On October 11, 2012, petitioner filed an 2 Objection to respondent's motion. Petitioner 3 4. 5 attached to her Objection a Declaration, repeating earlier statements that she never resided in or visited El Centro, California. 6 Hearing 7 Pursuant to written notice, the parties' 8 motions were called for hearing on Tuesday, February. 9 12, 2013, in Dallas,. Texas. Counsel for respondent 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 appeared and presented argument. In contrast, there was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner. VI. The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise that jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 .(1985). The Court's jurisdiction under sections 6320 and 6330 depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination and the filing of a timely petition for review. See . 20 Sarrell v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 122,.125 (2001); 21 Moorhous v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 263, 269 (2001); 22. see also Rule 330(b). Thus; in the absence of a 23 notice of determination, this Court lacks 24· jurisdiction. 25 Responden.t did not issue a notice of 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 .2 determination in respect of petitioner's outstanding tax liabilities for 2006, 2007, and 2008. However, · 3 as relevant herein, a necessary predicate for the 4 5 6 7 8 issuance of a. notice of determination is the issuance of a final notice of intent to levy sent to the . taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known address. . See sec. 6330 (a) (2) (C) . Accordingly, in this context, the Court does not ·have jurisdiction ·to hear . 9 petitioner's case because no notice of determination 1.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 was ever issued, and only the proper. basis for dismissal must be decided. See Buffano v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-32. VII. Section 6330 (a) imposes a requirement of notice before levy. In the present case, respondent has provided postal records proving that notices of deficiency for 2006, 2007, and 2008 were mailed to petitioner by certified mail. In contrast respondent has offered no postal records proving the 20 mailing, by certified .mail, of the notice prescribed 21 22. 23 24 25 by . section 6330 (a.) . Mailing is suggested, however, by transcripts of account (Forms 4340) for 2006, 2007, and 2008, which.each includes the entry "intent to ·levy, collection due process notice, levy notice .issued". (Such entry does not speak to whether the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company mailing was by certified mail, nor is any address for petitioner indicated.) But assuming the sufficiency of such entry to pr.ove the fact of mailing by certified mail, such assumption begs the question, to 10 what address was the final notice sent? Each transcript of account also includes the entry "undeliverable levy notice" and, as previously stated, petitioner has declared, under penalties of perjury, that she never received any final notice. So one might surmise that the final notice was sent to petitioner at the El Centro address. But the matter is not known for .sure. However, if we assume that the final notice was sent to petitioner at the El Centro address, we . are left with the issue whether the final notice was valid, i.e., was it sent to petitioner at her last 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . known address as required by section 6330 (a) (2) (C) . 18 Respondent insists that the El Centro address was 19 petitioner' s last known address, but respondent is 20 21 22 23 24 25 unable to explain on what basis he so concludes. Yet the. third-party repor.ting that respondent attached to the notices of deficiency and on which he relied in determining the deficiencies in tax strongly suggests the primacy of the.Belton address. . In sum, if the Court were to conclude that 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com . (cid:16)042 Capital Reporting Company 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 a final notice was in fact mailed.to petitioner for 2006, 2007, and 2008, and further if the Court were to conclude that such final notice was sent by certified mail, the Court would still be unable to conclude that such final notice was· mailed to petitioner at her last known address as the statute requires .. Accordingly, we are constrained to conclude that respondent failed to issue a valid final notice for 2006, 2007, and 2008. . VIII. Insofar as petitioner' s motion to restrain is.concerned, it is clear that. the Court has no jurisdiction to enjoin "unless a timely appeal has been filed under subsection (d) (1) [of section 6330] . and then only in respect of the unpaid tax or proposed levy to which the determination being appealed relates." Sec. 6330 (e) (1)·. Thus, in the absence of a determination by respondent' s Office of Appeals, see sec. 6330 (b) (1), (c) (3), and (d), the 20 Court has no jurisdiction to enjoin. Likewise, the 21 Court has no jurisdiction- to order a re.fund. See 22 Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1 (2006). 23 . Accordingly, petitioner' s motion will be denied.. 24 25 . IX. In order to reflect the foregoing, we shall 866.488.DEPO (cid:16)042 . . www.CapitalReportingCompany.com . Capital Reporting Company 12 1 2 enter .an Order And Order Of Dismissal (1) denying petitioner's Motion To Restrain Assessment Or 3 Collection And To Order Refund Of Amount Collected, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 filed June 18, 2012; (2) denying respondent' s Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction, filed August 8, 2012; and (3).dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction on the Court's own motion on the ground that respondent failed to issue a valid final notice of intent to levy for 2006, 2007, and 2008. See Buffano v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-32. X. Finally, a postscript. Petitioner would appear to be a nonfiler for 2006, 2007, and 2008. Accordingly, the statute of limitations on assessment is open for those years. See sec. 6501(c) (.3). The statute.of limitations on collection i.s also open in respect of the assessments already made for those years. See sec. 6502 (a) . The 19 Court takes no po·sition at this time on the options 20 21 22 23 24 25 available to respondent given the open statutes of limitations. XI. This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in. this case. (Whereupon, at 9:28 a.m., the above- 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com . entitled matter was concluded.) Capital Reporting Company 13 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