TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Anna M. Beare
Docket Number: 4011-11SL
Judge: Armen
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/04/2012
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 ANNA M. BEARE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 4011-11SL. ) 3 ) ) ) 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 of the above case before Special Trial Judge Robert N. Armen, Jr. at Houston, Texas, on March 19, 2012, 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 will be entered. (Signed) Robert N. Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. April 4, 2012 SERVED APR - 5 2012 1 2 3 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N. Armen, Jr. Anna M. Beare v. Commissioner Docket No. 4011-11SL 4 March 19, 2012 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I. 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. THE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE . See Rule 152(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. II. (cid:16)042 This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Case pursuant to the provisions of section 7463(f) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. See and compare Rules 330 through 334 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 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 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 section numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and all Rule numbers refer to the Tax 3 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 4 5 6 IV. Susan K. Greene appeared on behalf of respondent. There was no appearance by or on behalf of 7 petitioner. 8 9 10 11 12 V. By Notice dated October 18, 2011, and served on petitioner by mail on that same date, this case was calendared for trial on March 19, 2012, in Houston, Texas. However, on March 14, 2012, respondent filed a 13 Motion To Dismiss On Ground Of Mootness, a copy of which 14· was served by respondent on petitioner by mail on that 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 same date. In his motion, respondent contends that this case should be dismissed as moot given that, subsequent to the filing of the petition, petitioner's Federal income tax liabilities for 2005 and 2006, the sole taxable years at issue in this case, were paid in full and the proposed levy is no longer necessary. VI. The facts relevant to the disposition of respondent ' s mot ion may be brie f ly summarized as follows: Petitioner resided in the State of Texas at Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 the time that the petition was filed with the Court. Petitioner timely filed requests for extensions of time to file her 2005 and 2006 Federal income tax returns, but respondent never received a return from petitioner for either year. Accordingly, respondent utilized the substitute-for-return and deficiency procedures and, after no redetermination action was commenced, assessed tax, statutory interest, and applicable penalties. Respondent properly credited petitioner with tax that had been withheld, but a balance nevertheless remained for each year. Petitioner did not immediately pay the balance due, and respondent, after mailing requisite preliminary notices, sent petitioner a final notice of intent to levy. Petitioner responded by timely filing a request for a so-called due process hearing. The administrative process was ultimately concluded by the issuance of a Notice Of Determination 20 Concerning Collection Action Under Section 6320 and/or 21 22 6330 dated January 13, 2011 (notice of determination). In the notice of determination, respondent's Appeals 23 Office sustained the proposed levy. Petitioner 24 25 responded by commencing a collection review action in this Court pursuant to section 6330(d) (1). Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 During the pendency of both the administrative and judicial actions, and through various abatements, payments, and set-offs, the account balances owed by petitioner for 2005 and 2006 were reduced to zero. As previously stated, on March 14, 2012, just five days before trial, respondent filed his Motion To Dismiss On Ground Of Mootness. Respondent attached to his motion literal transcripts of account for 2005 and 2006. The transcripts confirm that petitioner has no outstanding liability (including accruals) for either 2005 or 2006. On Monday, March 19, 2012, this case was called from the calendar. Respondent's counsel appeared and confirmed that respondent no longer needs, nor intends, to levy to collect for either 2005 or 2006 as 17 petitioner's liabilities for those years, including 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 accruals of interest and penalties, have been paid in full. VII. The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. See sec. 7442. Accordingly, we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In addition, jurisdiction must be proven Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 affirmatively, and a party invoking our jurisdiction 2 3 4 5 6 7 bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the party's case. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, 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 8 must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to 9 our jurisdiction. See Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, 10 Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 180; Consolidated Co. v. 11 Commissioner, 15 B.T.A. 645, 651 (1929). 12 13 14 15 16 In Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1 (2006), the Court held that: (1) The taxpayer's challenges to the Commissioner's collection action (a proposed levy) were moot because there was no unpaid tax liability upon which a levy could be based and the 17 Commissioner would not take any further collection 18 19 20 21 22 action; (2) this Court lacks jurisdiction in a lien or levy case (collection review case) to determine an overpayment or to order a refund or credit of taxes; and (3) the taxpayer's case should be dismissed as moot. The reasoning of Green-Thapedi v. 23 Commissioner, supra, applies equally to the present 24 case. We are therefore obliged to grant respondent's 25 March 14, 2012 motion to dismiss. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 VIII . In conclusion, we shall enter an Order Of 3 Dismissal (1) granting respondent's Motion To Dismiss On 4 Ground Of Mootness, filed March 14, 2012, and (2) 8 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 dismissing this case on the ground that, subsequent to the filing of the petition, petitioner's income tax liabilities for the taxable (calendar) years 2005 and 2006 were paid in full and the proposed levy is therefore no longer necessary. IX. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888