TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Patricia Gayle Guest
Docket Number: 4366-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/14/2008
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 PATRICIA GAYLE GUEST, Petitione r v . ) Docket No . 4366-07S . 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 hearing of the above case before Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at Denver, Colorado on March 10, 2008, 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 . DATE : Washington, D .C . April 14, 2008 (Signed) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e wvL-D APR 16 2008 2 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . 2 Docket Number 4366-07 S March 10, 200 8 3 I . 4 THE COURT : THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER 5 ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE AND THE 6 FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT 7 AND OPINION . THE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINIO N 8 SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER 9 CASE . 10 II . 11 This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax 12 Case, pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of 13 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and 14 Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules o f 15 Practice and Procedure . 16 III . 17 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 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, al l 22 section numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code, as 23 amended, and all Rule numbers refer to the Tax Court 24 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 IV . 2 Robert A . Varra appeared on behalf o f 3 respondent . There was no appearance by or on behalf 4 of petitioner . 5 V . 6 By Notice dated and served on petitioner by 7 certified mail on October 10, 2007, this case wa s 8 calendared for trial on March 10, 2008, in Denver, 9 Colorado . However, on January 10, 2008, respondent 10 filed a Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction, a 11 copy of which was served by respondent on petitioner 12 by mail on January 9, 2008 . In his motion, respondent 13 contends that this case should be dismissed on th e 14 ground that the petition was not filed within the time 15 prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502 . Also 16 in his motion, respondent advises that petitione r 17 objects to the granting of the motion . 18 By Order dated January 11, 2008, and served 19 on petitioner by certified mail on January 14, 2008, 20 the Court directed petitioner to file, on or before 21 February 11, 2008, an objection or other response to 22 respondent's aforementioned motion . Petitioner failed 23 to do so . 24 Pursuant to notice, this case was called 25 from the calendar on March 10, 2008, in Denver, Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 Colorado . Counsel for respondent appeared . I n 2 contrast, there was no appearance by or on behalf of 3 petitioner . Later that day, this case was recalle d 4 from the calendar . Again, there was no appearance by 5 or on behalf of petitioner . Counsel for responden t 6 appeared and argued in support of his January 10, 2008 7 motion to dismiss . 8 VI . 9 Because this Court may only hear and decide 10 a case on the merits if the Court has jurisdiction, 11 the threshold issue for decision is necessaril y 12 whether Patricia Gayle Guest (petitioner) filed her 13 petition for redetermination of deficiency within the 14 90-day period prescribed by sections 6213(a) and 7502 . 15 VII . 16 The facts necessary to a resolution of the 17 jurisdictional issue are as follows : 18 On October 18, 2006, respondent mailed a 19 notice of deficiency to petitioner . In the notice, 20 respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner' s 21 Federal income taxes for the taxable years 2000, 2001, 22 and 2002 in the amounts of $7,934, $6,424, and $7,154, 23 respectively, as well as additions to tax unde r 24 section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file and 25 accuracy-related penalties under section 6662 . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 The notice was sent to petitioner b y 2 certified mail addressed to her at 3095 Adams, Denver, 3 Colorado 80205 . We shall hereinafter refer to thi s 4 address as the Adams street address . 5 The first page of the notice of deficiency 6 states as follows : "Last Day to File a Petition With 7 the United States Tax Court : January 16, 2007 . " 8 On February 23, 2007, petitioner filed a 9 petition with this Court seeking a redetermination of 10 the deficiencies, additions to tax, and penaltie s 11 determined by respondent in the notice of deficiency . 12 The petition arrived at the Court by certified mail in 13 an envelope bearing a U .S . Postal Service postmar k 14 date of February 16, 2007 . 15 Paragraph 2 of the petition references an 16 IRS notice dated "11/16/06 ." However, the onl y 17 document that is attached to the petition as a n 18 exhibit is a copy of the first page of the October 18, 19 2006 notice of deficiency . 20 The address appearing on the petition, a s 21 well as the address appearing on the envelope in which 22 the petition was mailed to the Court, is the Adam s 23 street address ; i .e ., the same address to which the 24 notice of deficiency was sent . 25 As indicated, respondent filed a Motion To Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction on January 10, 2008 . 2 In the motion, respondent contends that dismissal for 3 lack of jurisdiction is required because petitione r 4 failed to file a timely petition . 5 VIII . 6 This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a 7 deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance of a 8 valid notice of deficiency and a timely-file d 9 petition . Monge v . Commissioner , 93 T .C . 22, 2 7 10 (1989) ; Normac, Inc . v . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 142, 147 11 (1988) ; Rule 13(a), (c) . Section 6212(a) expressly 12 authorizes respondent, after determining a deficiency, 13 to send a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer b y 14 certified or registered mail . It is sufficient fo r 15 jurisdictional purposes if respondent mails the notice 16 of deficiency to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's "last 17 known address ." Sec . 6212(b) ; Frieling v . 18 Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 52 (1983) . Indeed, if the 19 notice is mailed to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's 20 last known address, actual receipt of the notice by 21 the taxpayer is immaterial . See King v . Commissioner , 22 857 F .2d 676, 679 (9th Cir . 1988), affg . 88 T .C . 1042 23 (1987) ; Yusko v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 806, 81 0 24 (1987) ; Frieling v . Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 52 25 (1983) . The taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days, or 150 Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside 2 the United States, from the date the notice o f 3 deficiency is mailed to file a petition in this Court 4 for a redetermination of the contested deficiency . 5 Sec . 6213(a) . By virtue of section 7502, a petition 6 that is timely mailed is deemed to be timely filed . 7 It is clear in the present case tha t 8 respondent mailed the notice of deficiency t o 9 petitioner on October 18, 2006 . See Magazine v . 10 Commissioner , 89 T .C . 321, 327 n .8 (1987), holding 11 that Postal Service Form 3877 represents direc t 12 evidence of the date of mailing of the notice o f 13 deficiency . Therefore, the 90-day period within which 14 petitioner was required to file her petition with the 15 Court expired on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 . However, 16 petitioner did not file a petition for redetermination 17 with this Court until February 23, 2007, a date after 18 the expiration of the critical 90-day period . 19 Moreover, the petition arrived at the Court in an 20 envelope bearing a U .S . Postal Service postmark date 21 of February 16, 2007, once again a date after th e 22 expiration of the critical 90-day period . Under these 23 circumstances, respondent contends that the petition 24 was not timely filed and that the Court lack s 25 jurisdiction to redetermine petitioner's liability for Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 the deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties for 8 2 the taxable years in issue . 3 IX . 4 The defense most commonly asserted b y 5 taxpayers in cases such as the present one is that a 6 particular notice of deficiency was not mailed to the 7 taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known address and i s 8 therefore invalid . However, this defense has not been 9 raised in the present case, and the record suggest s 10 that any such defense would be unavailing, given the 11 fact that petitioner had the same address at the time 12 when the notice of deficiency was mailed and when the 13 petition was filed . Thus, there is no reason to 14 belabor the matter . 15 X . 16 In view of the foregoing, we hold that the 17 petition in this case was not timely filed pursuant to 18 either section 6213(a) or section 7502 . Accordingly, 19 we shall grant respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack 20 of Jurisdiction, filed January 10, 2008, and we shall 21 dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on th e 22 ground that the petition was not timely filed . 2 3 24 XI . Finally, a postscript . 25 Although petitioner cannot pursue a case i n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 this Court, petitioner is not without a judicial 2 remedy . Thus, petitioner may pay the determine d 3 liabilities, file a claim for refund with the Internal 4 Revenue Service, and, if the claim is denied, sue for 5 a refund in the appropriate Federal district court or 6 the United States Court of Federal Claims . Se e 7 McCormick v . Commissioner , 55 T .C . 138, 142 n .5 8 (1970) . 9 XII . 10 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF 11 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . 12 (Whereupon, at 3 :52 p .m ., the bench opinion 13 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 14 // 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888