TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Charles R. Barrett
Docket Number: 21310-14SL
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/08/2015
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 CHARLES R. BARRETT, ) Cz Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) Docket No. 21310-14SL ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to the determination of the Court as set forth in its bench opinion rendered on April 17, 2015, 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 trial in the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Denver, Colorado, 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. May 8, 2015 SERVED May 13 2015 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. 2 Carluzzo 3 April 17, 2015 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Charles R. Barrett Docket No. 21310-14SL 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 (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. This Section 6330(d) case (according to the petition) is a small tax case 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, and except as provided in Rule 152(c), this bench opinion shall not be cited as authority. This case is now before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, filed October 27, 2014. Petitioner's 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 objection to respondent's motion was filed October 28, 2014, and supplemented on March 25, 2015. By 3 Order dated January 20, 2015, respondent's motion was 4 5 6 7 8 9 set for hearing in Denver, Colorado, on April 13, 2015. By agreement with the parties, the motion was heard in Denver on April 14, 2015. Melinda K. Fisher appeared on behalf of respondent and argued in support of the motion. Charles R. Barrett, who resided in Colorado at the time the petition was 10 filed, appeared on his own behalf and opposed the 11 motion. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 The undisputed facts relied upon by respondent in support of his motion are summarized below. By notice dated February 11, 2009 (2007 notice), petitioner was advised that respondent intended to levy in order to collect petitioner's then outstanding 2007 federal income tax liability (2007 liability). See Section 6330(a). The 2007 notice also advised petitioner of his right to challenge respondent's proposed collection action by requesting an administrative hearing. Upon receipt of the 2007 notice, petitioner contacted the Taxpayer Advocate's Office, but he did not request a hearing 25 with respondent's Appeals Office as directed in the 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 notice and contemplated in Section 6330(b). In due course over the years, and in addition to payments made by petitioner, his 2007 liability has been reduced by amounts collected by respondent as a result of a levy on petitioner's social security benefits. By notice dated October 4, 2012 (2008 notice), petitioner was advised that respondent intended to levy in order to collect his then outstanding 2008 federal income tax liability (2008 liability). As with the 2007 notice, the 2008 notice also advised petitioner of his right to challenge respondent's proposed collection action by requesting an administrative hearing, but that notice was returned, undelivered, to respondent because petitioner was not living at the address to which it was sent. The parties dispute whether the 2008 notice was addressed to petitioner at his "last known address" or otherwise delivered in accordance with Section 6330(a)(2). For reasons that will be discussed later in this bench opinion, respondent's 22 motion can be resolved without the need to resolve 23 24 25 the dispute between them on this point. Although the petition makes no reference to any particular year, the parties agree that the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 relief sought in the petition is directed towards his 2007 and 2008 liabilities. Those years are referenced in the relevant Notice of Levy served upon the Social Security Administration after the issuance of the 2007 and 2008 notices; and those are the years referenced in a closing letter that petitioner received in response to his request for relief pursuant to respondent's Collection Appeals Program (closing letter). The petition in this case was filed in response to the closing letter, which according to petitioner, constitutes a "determination" within the 13 meaning of Section 6330(d)(1). Respondent disagrees 14 with petitioner, and so do we. A closing letter such 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 as the one relied upon by petitioner does not constitute a determination within the meaning of Section 6330(d)(1). See S&M Trust No. 1 Margarette S. McMchan, Trustee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-72. As we have noted in countless opinions and orders too numerous to count, the Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise judgment only to the extent authorized by Congress. See 24 Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). 25 We are satisfied that the closing letter is 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 not a sufficient determination to establish the 2 Court's jurisdiction over petitioner's 2007 and/or 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2008 liabilities under Section 6330(d), and in the absence of such a determination we are without jurisdiction in this case, which apparently was commenced under that section. See Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1 (2004), aff'd, 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2001). According to respondent, respondent has made no other determinations, or failed to take any action, that would otherwise support the Court's jurisdiction over the matters contained in the petition. Because petitioner is not able to establish otherwise, we are further satisfied that we have no jurisdiction in this matter under any provision of the Internal Revenue Code. Although we are without jurisdiction in this case, we think it appropriate to comment further upon petitioner's 2008 liability, which apparently is now paid. In the absence of a determination contemplated by Section 6330(d), under certain circumstances we will dismiss a Section 6330(d) case for lack of jurisdiction upon the ground that the notice contemplated by Section 6330(a) was not mailed to the taxpayer's last known address or otherwise delivered as required by Section 6330(a)(2). See 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Buffano v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-32. As noted above, the parties disagree over whether the 2008 notice satisfies those requirements, and dismissing a case, or part of a case upon that ground rather than the ground relied upon by respondent in this case could have an effect on respondent's proposed collection action. Under the circumstances of this case, however, it matters not upon which ground the dismissal is based because the 2008 liability has been paid. Even if the forced collection of petitioner's 2008 liability was inconsistent with the procedures contemplated in Sections 6320 and/or 6330, and we make no finding on the point, we would be powerless to provide 15 petitioner with a remedy or the refund that he seeks. 16 After all, if we have no authority to order a refund 17 18 19 20 in a Section 6330(d) case over which we properly have jurisdiction, see Green-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1 (2006), then we most certainly have no such refund authority in a case such as this where we are 21 without jurisdiction. Our lack of jurisdiction also 22 23 24 25 renders moot petitioner's request for injunctive relief. Our authority to enjoin the collection of a federal tax in a Section 6330(d) case arises only if the Court properly has jurisdiction in that case. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 9 See Section 6330(e)(1). Lastly, we think it also appropriate to note that nothing in this bench opinion, or the order to be entered as a result, should be taken as a comment on whether petitioner is entitled to the relief he seeks here in proceedings, administrative or otherwise, available to him under other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. To reflect the foregoing and for reasons set forth in respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, an appropriate order will be entered. This concludes the Court's bench opinion in this matter. (Whereupon, at 9:15 a.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