TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Denise Dorsey
Docket Number: 10025-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/23/2009
Pages: 5

ChUi UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 DENISE DORSEY, Petitioner , V . Docket No . 10025-08 S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . O 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 February 26, 2009, 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 . March 23, 2009 SERVED MAR 2 6 2009 2 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo 2 February 26, 200 9 3 Dorsey v . Commissioner Docket Number 10025-08S 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and 6 the following represents the Court's oral findings of 7 fact and opinion . 8 This proceeding for the redetermination of a 9 deficiency is a Small Tax Case conducted pursuant to 10 the provisions of Section 7463 of the Internal Revenue 11 Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of 12 the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 13 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 14 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Internal 15 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 16 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . Unles s 17 otherwise indicated, subsequent section reference s 18 made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue 19 Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant 20 period . Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of 21 Practice and Procedure . 22 Denise Dorsey appeared pro se . Jennifer K . 23 Martwick appeared on behalf of Respondent . 24 This case is before the Court on 25 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 Jurisdiction , filed October 10, 2008 . Respondent' s 2 motion is based upon the ground that the petition was 3 not filed within the period prescribed by Sectio n 4 6213 . A hearing was conducted on Respondent ' s motion 5 on February 23, 2009, in Atlanta, Georgia . The 6 parties appeared and were heard . 7 The underlying facts relevant to a 8 disposition of Respondent ' s motion are not in dispute 9 and are easily summarized . In a notice of deficiency 10 dated and sent by certified mail to Petitioner o n 11 August 10, 2007, Respondent determined a $7,41 2 12 deficiency in her 2006 Federal income tax . The notice 13 of deficiency was properly sent to Petitioner , and she 14 does not suggest otherwise . The petition , which was 15 sent to the Court by certified mail on April 24, 2008, 16 a date 153 days after the notice of deficiency wa s 17 mailed . The petition was received and filed by th e 18 Court on April 29, 2008 , a date 158 after the date the 19 notice of deficiency was mailed . 20 21 -~i-r i~a s_r-~-,-~~~-aw e } y _ , _~ a a 22 On April 2, 2007 Petitioner commenced a 23 bankruptcy proceeding in the U . S . Bankruptcy Court, 24 Northern District of Georgia ( Atlanta) . The 25 bankruptcy proceeding was filed pursuant to Chapter 13 Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 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 4 of Title 11, but it was converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding on June 1, 2007 . Let's go off the record for a minute . (Whereupon , a brief discussion was held . ) This Court ' s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely-file d petition . Monge v . Commissioner , 93 T .C . 22, 2 7 (1989 ) ; Normac , Inc . v . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 142, 14 7 (1988 ) ; Rule 13(a), (c) . There is no question regarding the validit y of the notice of deficiency . The dispute between th e parties focuses on whether the petition was timely . Taking into account the automatic stay provisions o f 11 U .S .C . Section 362(a ), lifted on November 21, 2007 , when Petitioner as a Chapter 7 debtor received a discharge pursuant to an order of the bankruptc y court, the petition was due to the filed on or befor e 1cv si - April 21 , 2008 . That is f days from the date of the discharge . See Sections 6213 ( f), 7503 ; 11 U .S .C . Section 362(c )( 2)(C) . The petition, however, wa s neither filed nor mailed for filing during that tim e period . That being so, it follows that the petitio n was not filed within the period prescribed by Sectio n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 6213, and Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of 2 jurisdiction on that ground must be granted . 3 To reflect the foregoing, an appropriat e 4 order granting Respondent's motion and dismissing this 5 case for lack of jurisdiction upon the ground that the 6 petition was not filed within the period prescribed by 7 Section 6231 will be entered . 8 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 9 fact and opinion in this case . 10 (Whereupon, at 9 :55 a .m ., the bench opinion 11 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888