TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Anthony Taylor & Dail Moses Taylor
Docket Number: 17739-15S
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/08/2016
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 ANTHONY TAYLOR & DAIL MOSES TAYLOR, Petitioners, v. SD ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 17739-15S 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 petitioners 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 New York, New York, 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. July 8, 2016 SERVED Jul 08 2016 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. 2 Carluzzo 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 June 23, 2016 Anthony Taylor & Dail Moses Taylor v. Commissioner Docket No. 17739-15S 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 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. Upon election made in the petition by petitioners, this case is subject to the provisions of Section 7463 and Rules 170 through 175. The order to be entered in this case shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. This case is now before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, filed September 2, 2015, and supplemented on September 15, 2015, and June 21, 2016 (subsequent references to respondent's motion are to 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 the motion as supplemented). Respondent's motion is based upon the ground that the petition was not filed 3 within the period prescribed by Section 6213(a). 4 Petitioners' objections to respondent's motion are 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 embodied in their objection, filed September 30, 2015, as supplemented on December 7, 2015, and in their letter to the Court, filed March 24, 2016. According to petitioners, they did not receive the notices of deficiency, and a fair reading of their submissions suggests that they question whether the notices were properly mailed to them. By order dated June 2, 2016, respondent's 13 motion was set for hearing in New York, New York, on 14 15 16 17 18 19 June 21, 2016. On that date, the case was called from the calendar as scheduled. Lyle B. Press appeared on behalf of respondent. Siana Danch, a third year law student enrolled in respondent's intern program, was allowed to participate in the proceeding on respondent's behalf and argued in support of the 20 motion. Petitioners appeared on their own behalf and 21 22 23 24 opposed it. The petition, filed July 13, 2015, places in dispute deficiencies determined in petitioners' 2007, 2008, and 2009 federal income tax liabilities. 25 Respondent's records show that on July 13, 2010, a 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 notice of deficiency with respect to 2007 was issued and mailed by certified mail to petitioners at 140 3 Dell Avenue, Mount Vernon, NY 10550-1615. 4 5 6 7 8 9 Respondent's records further show that on March 8, 2011, a notice of deficiency with respect to 2008 and 2009 was issued and mailed by certified mail to petitioners at P.O. Box 427, Hopewell Junction, NY 12533-0427 (notices). Each of those addresses is shown as petitioners' "last known address," see 10 Section 6212, at the relevant time on a data base 11 maintained by respondent for such purposes. A copy 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 of each of the notices is included in the record as is a copy of a certified mailing list showing that the notices were mailed as claimed by respondent. Petitioners apparently were in the process of a divorce at or around the time the notices were issued and might have been living separate and apart by then. Although petitioners claim that the notices were not received, they do not claim that either of them notified respondent as to an address other than shown on either of the notices prior to the dates that the notices were issued. At the hearing, petitioners acknowledged their connection to the 24 Mount Vernon address, although they were less than 25 certain when asked about their connection to the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hopewell Junction address. Nevertheless, we note that one of their submissions to the Court includes a letter dated April 4, 2011, from the office of the Taxpayer Advocate Service addressed to them at that post office, at the Hopewell Junction address. Under the circumstances, we are persuaded by respondent's records that each notice was properly 8 mailed to petitioners. Although we make no finding 9 on the point, we further note that nothing submitted 10 11 12 13 14 15 causes us to question petitioners' claim that neither of the notices were received by either of them. The notices, of course, are valid even if not received. See, e.g., Guthrie v. Sawyer, 970 F.2d 733 (10th Cir. 1992); Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42 (1983). In proceedings such as this one, the 16 Court's jurisdiction over a year placed in dispute in 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 a petition depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency for that year and a petition timely filed in response to that notice of deficiency. Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); Rule 13(a),(c). Because the petition was not filed within the applicable period of time (here 90 days) after each notice was issued, the Court is 25 without jurisdiction in this matter. It follows that 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 respondent's motion should be granted and an appropriate order will be entered to that end. This concludes the courts bench opinion in this matter. (Whereupon, at 2:27 p.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