TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Jobey Henderson
Docket Number: 25810-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/18/2010
Pages: 10

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 2021 7 JOBEY HENDERSON, Petitione r v . ) Docket No . 25810-08S . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , ,Respondent O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is j 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 of the above case before Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at Detroit, Michigan, on March 3, 2010, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the hearing . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an Order Of Dismissal For Lack of Jurisdiction . will be entered . (Signed ) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . March 18, 2010 SERVED- MAR 2 2 2016 2 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen 2 March 3, 201 0 3 Henderson v . Commissioner Docket No . 25810-08 S 4 I . THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER ORAL FINDINGS O F 6 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE , AND THE FOLLOWING 7 REPRESENTS THE COURT ' S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND 8 OPINION . THE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL 9 NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE . 10 II . 11 This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Case 12 pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the 13 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended , and Rules 14 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 15 Procedure . 16 17 } III . This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 18 authority granted by section 7459 ( b) of the Internal 19 Revenue Code of 1986 , as amended , and Rule 152 of the 20 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 21 Hereinafter in this bench opinion , and unles s 22 otherwise indicated , all section numbers refer to the 23 Internal Revenue Code , as amended , and all Rul e 24 numbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 25 Procedure . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 IV . 2 A . Gary Begun appeared on behalf of respondent . 3 As Jobey Henderson (hereinafter, petitioner) i s 4 presently incarcerated, he did not appear, nor was any 5 appearance made on his behalf . 6 V . 7 By Notice dated and served on September 23, 2009, 8 this case was calendared for trial at the Court' s 9 trial session commencing on March 1, 2010, in Detroit, 10 Michigan . However, on January 19, 2010, respondent 11 filed a Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction, a 12 copy of which was served by respondent on petitioner 13 by mail on January 15, 2010 . In his motion , 14 respondent contends that this case should be dismissed 15 on the ground that "no statutory notice of deficiency 16 nor notice of determination, as authorized by I .R .C . 17 §§ 6212, 6015, 6320 or 6330, and required by I .R .C . §§ 18 6213(a), 6015, 6320 or 6330, to form the basis for a 19 petition to this Court, .has been sent to petitione r 20 with respect to tax year 2003, nor has respondent 21 made any other determination with respect t o 22 petitioner that would confer jurisdiction on this 23 Court . " 24 By order dated and served January 21, 2010, the 25 Court directed petitioner to file an objection or Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 other response to respondent ' s motion on or before 2 February 18,! 2010 . In that same Order , the Court also 3 calendared respondent ' s motion for hearing on March 1, 4 2010, in Detroit , Michigan . 5 The Court did not receive from petitioner an y 6 objection or other response to respondent ' s motion as 7 required by the Court ' s January 21, 2010 Order . 8 This case was called from the calendar on March 9 1, 2010, in Detroit, Michigan , and then recalled later 10 that day for hearing on respondent's motion . At that 11 time, counsel for respondent appeared and provided to, 12 the Court a written communication from petitione r 13 received by counsel ' s office on February 16, 2010, in 14 Detroit , Michigan . The Court then filed tha t 15 communication as petitioner's objection to 16 respondent's motion . 17 Respondent ' s motion was recalled for further 18 hearing on March 3, 2010 . Respondent ' s counsel 19 appeared and supported the pending motion . 20 VI . 21 Because this Court may only hear and decide a 22 case on the merits if the Court has jurisdiction, the 23 threshold issue for decision is necessarily whether 24 respondent made any determination that would serve to 25 confer jurisdiction on this Court . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 VII . 2 The facts necessary to a resolution of the 3 jurisdictional issue are as follows : 4 Petitioner resided in the State of Michigan at 5 the time that the petition was filed with the Court . 6 The petition in this case was filed on Octobe r 23, 2008 . Paragraph 1 states that petitioner disputes an IRS Notice of Determination Concerning Collectio n 9 Action . However, paragraphs 2-,and 3 do not provide 10 either the date of the alleged notice nor the year or 11 period for which it was allegedly issued-. Rather , 12 petitioner simply wrote "n/a" on each of the blanks 13 for paragraphs .2 and 3 . 14 Petitioner did not attach to his petition as an 15 exhibit any IRS notice or other communication . 16 Indeed, petitioner did not attach any document 17 whatsoever to his petition as an exhibit . 18 Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the petition do not clearly 19 describe the nature of petitioner's complaint with the 20 IRS . The year 2003 is mentioned in paragraph 6 , 21 although cryptically at best . 22 VIII . 23 As previously stated, respondent filed a Motion 24 To Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction on January 19, 25 2010 . Apparently because 2003 is the only year Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 mentioned in the petition, respondent's motion focuses 2 on the lack of any determination for that year . 3 However, petitioner's Objection to respondent's 4 motion sheds some light on the nature of petitioner's 5 complaint with the IRS . Thus, it appears that by 6 Notice Number CP15 dated November 26, 2007, respondent 7 notified petitioner that he had been charged a_penalty 8 of $5,000 under section 6702 . for submitting a 9 frivolous tax return for the taxable (calendar) year 10 2006 . Thereafter ., by Notice Number CP503 date d 11 December 31, 2007, respondent contacted petitione r 12 about "your unpaid account" with a current balance o f 13 $5,038 .50, consisting of the $5,000 section 670 2 14 penalty plus interest of $38 .50 . The recor d 15 demonstrates that respondent assessed the section 6702 16 penalty only after petitioner failed to respond t o 17 respondent's letter dated August 28, 2007, asking hi m 18 to file a "corrected return" to replace the 19 originally-submitted Form 1040 . 20 IX . 21 The Tax Court is acourt of limited jurisdiction . 22 See sec . 7442 . Accordingly, we may exercis e 23 jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorize d 24, by statute . Breman v .. Commissioner ,, 66 T .C . 61, 6 6 25 (1976) . In addition, jurisdiction must be prove n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 . affirmatively, and a party invoking our jurisdiction 2 bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction 3 over the party' s case . See Fehrs v . Commissioner , 65 4 T .C . 346, 348 ( 1975 ) ; Wheeler ' s Peachtree Pharmacy , 5 6 7 8 Inc . v . Commissioner , 35 T .C . 177, 180 (1960) ; National Comm . to Secure Justice, Etc . v . Commissioner , 27 T .C . 837, 839 (1957) . In order to meet this burden, the party must establis h 9 affirmatively all facts giving rise to our 10 jurisdiction . See Wheeler ' s Peachtree Pharmacy, . Inc . 11 12 v . Commissioner , supra at 180 ; Consolidated Co . v . Commissioner , 15 B .T .A . 645, 651 (1929) . 13 Insofar as the frivolous return penalty i s 14 concerned , it is clear that respondent may assess such 15 penalty without regard to the deficiency procedure s 16, prescribed by subchapter B of chapter 63, i .e ., 17 sections 6211 through 6215 . Sec . 6703(b) . It i s 18 equally clear that,a taxpayer seeking judicial review 19 must first pay the penalty, file a claim for refund 20 with the IRS, and then, if the claim is disallowed by 21 the IRS, commence suit, not in the Tax Court, but 22 rather in the appropriate district court or the United 23 States Court of Federal Claims . See generally sec . 24 7422 . 25 However , if respondent attempts to collect an Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 unpaid section 6702 penalty, this Court may hav e 2 collection review jurisdiction pursuant to sectio n 3 6330(d) . See generally sec . 6320, relating to liens, 4 and sec . 6330, relating to levies . However, in a 5 collection review action, this Court's jurisdiction 6 depends, in part, on the issuance of a notice o f 7 determination by respondent's office of Appeals afte r the taxpayer has requested an administrative hearing 9 following the issuance by respondent's collectio n 10 division of either a final notice of intent to levy,- 11 see sec . 6330(a), or a notice of filing of Federal tax 12 lien, see sec . 6320(a) . See Sarrell v . Commissioner , 13 117 T .C . 122, 125 (2001) ; Moorhous v . Commissioner , 14 116 T .C . 263, 269 (2001) ; Offiler v . Commissioner , 1,14 15 T .C . 492, 498 (2000) ; see also Rule 330(b) . 16 The aforementioned Notice Number CP503 date d 17 December 31, 2007, is a preliminary collection notice . 18 It is not a final notice of intent to levy, nor is it 19 a notice of filing of Federal tax lien . 20 There is nothing in the record to suggest, much 21 less demonstrate, that respondent's collection efforts 22 have progressed beyond . politely asking petitioner to 23 pay an assessed liability . Without a proposed levy, 24 i .e ., without the issuance of a final notice of intent 25 to levy, or .without the filing of a lien, petitione r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 would have no occasion to request an administrative 2 hearing before respondent ' s Office of Appeals, an d 3 respondent ' s office of Appeals would have no occasion 4 to issue a notice of determination . And without a 5 notice of determination, this Court lacks collection 6 review jurisdiction . 7 It is conceivable that respondent may, in the future, send petitioner a final notice of intent t o levy or a notice of filing of Federal tax lien . wit h 10 respect to his outstanding liability. . Should that 11 happen, petitioner would have the right to request 12 administrative review by respondent's office o f 13 Appeals and, if dissatisfied with the determination of 14 that office, to seek judicial review . See sec . 15 6330(d) . 16 X . 17 As the party seeking to invoke this Court's 18 jurisdiction, petitioner has failed to demonstrate 19 that we have jurisdiction in the present case . 20 Accordingly , we shall enter an order Of Dismissal For 21 Lack Of Jurisdiction granting respondent's Motion To 22 Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction, filed January 19, 23 2010, and dismissing this case on the ground that no 24 notice of determination has been issued b y 25 respondent ' s office of Appeals in . respect of Heritage Reporting'Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 petitioner ' s liability for the section 6702 penalty . THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT ' S ORAL,FINDINGS OF FACT xi . 1 0 4 9 1 0 11 1 2 1 3 14 1 5 1 6 17 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 25 AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . , . t (Whereupon , at 10 :31 a .m ., the bench opinio n in the above - entitled matter was concluded . ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888