TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Rodney Louis-Angelo Holland
Docket Number: 13892-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/18/2009
Pages: 8

I C. A . U. 1 UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 P y OMw( RODNEY LOUIS-ANGELO HOLLAND, Petitione r V . 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 Chicago, Illinois, on April 29, 2009, 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 granting respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction filed March 26, 2009 . . (Signed) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : . Washington, D .C . May 18,-2009 it MAY 2 0 2U9 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen Jr . 2 April 29, 200 9 3 Holland- v . Commissioner Docket No . 13892-0.8S 3 5 THE COURT : THE COURT HAS DECIDED . TO RENDER ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE , AND THE FOLLOWING 7 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 . II . This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Cas e 1 0 11 12 pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal 13 Revenue Code of 1986 , as amended . 14 III . 15 This bench opinion is made. pursuant . to the- 16 authority granted by section-7459-(b) of the Internal Revenue 17 Code of 1986, as amended , and Rule 152 of the Tax Cour t 18 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 19 Hereinafter in this bench opinion , all sectio n 20 numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code , as amended, and 21 all Rule umbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice 22 and Procedure . 23 IV . 24 Thomas D . Yang appeared on behalf of Respondent . 25 There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Petitioner . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 V . 2 By Notice dated and served November 26, 2008, thi s .3 case was calendared for trial at the Court's trial session 4 beginning on April 27, 2009 in Chicago, Illinois . On March 5 26, 2009, Respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss-For Lack of 6 Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed 7 within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or sectio n 8 7502 . 9 VI . 10 Because this Court may only hear and decide a case 11 on the merits if it has jurisdiction, the threshold issu e 12 for decision is necessarily whether Petitioner filed his 13 petitioner for redetermination within the 90-day period 14 prescribed by sections 6213(a) and 750 2 15 VII . 16 The facts necessary to a resolution of the 17 jurisdictional issue are as follows : 18 On March 3, 2008, the Respondent sent a notice of 19 deficiency to Petitioner . In the notice, which was dated 20 March 3, 2008, Respondent determined a deficiency i n 21 Petitione,'s Federal income tax for the taxable year 2002 in 22 the amount of $11,593, together with additions to tax under 23 section 6651(a)(1) and (2) . 24 The notice of deficiency was mailed to Petitioner 25 by certified mail addressed to him at 9228 South Kingston Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 Avenue, Chicago , Illinois 60617 . Hereinafter , we shal l 5 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .21 22 23 -24 25 refer to this address ' as the South Kingston Avenue address . Petitioner received the notice of deficiency . Indeed, the Track & Confirm tool at the United States Posta l Service website (www .usps .com) indicates that the notice o f deficiency was delivered on March 7, 2008 . The first page of the notice of deficienc y includes the following statement : " Last Date to Petition Ta x Court : June 2, 2008" . On June 9, 2008 , Petitioner filed a petition with this Court seeking a redetermination of the deficiency an d additions to tax determined by Respondent . The petition arrived at the Court by certified mail in an envelop e bearing a United States Postal Service postmark date of Jun e 3, 2008 . The address on the petitioner , as well as the return address on the envelope in which the petition wa s mailed to the Court, is the South Kingston Avenue address , i .e ., the same address to which the notice of deficiency wa s sent . Petitioner attached a copy of the notice o f deficiency to the petition as an exhibit . As indicated , Respondent filed a motion To Dismis s For Lack of Jurisdiction on March 26 , 2009 . In his motion , Respondent contends that dismissal for lack of jurisdictio n is required because Petitioner failed to file a timel y petition . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 The defense most commonly'asserted by taxpayers .in :cases such as the present one is that a particular notice of deficiency was not mailed to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known address . However, this defense has not bee n .raised in the present . case, and the record suggests that any such defense would be unavailing given the fact that Petitioner had the same-address at the time-when-the notice of deficiency was mailedand when the petition was filed . 9 In addition, the Petitioner received the notice o f 10 deficiency . Accordingly, there is no reason to belabor the 11 matter . 12 VIII . 13 This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a 14 deficiency depends on the issuance of a valid notice of 15 deficiency and a timely-filed petition . Monge v . 16 17 Commissioner , 93 T .C . 22, 27 (1989) ; Normac, Inc . v . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 142, 147 (1988) ; Rule 13(a)(c ) 18 Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes-the Commissioner, after 19 determining a deficiency, to send a-notice of deficiency to 20 the taxpayer by certified or registered mail . It i s 21 sufficient for jurisdictional purposes if Respondent mails . 22 the notice of deficiency to°the taxpayer at the taxpayer's 23 "last known address" . Sec . 6212(b) ; Frieling v . 24 Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 52 (1983) . (Parenthetically, we 25 note that if a notice of deficiency is mailed to the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known . address, actual receipt of the notice is immaterial . King v . Commissioner , 857 F .2d 676, 679 (9th Cir . 1988), affg . 88 T .C . 104 2 (1987) ; Yusko v . Commissioner , . 89 T .C . 806, 810 (1987) ; Frieling V . Commissioner , supra at 52 . ) 6 The taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days from'the date . 7 the notice of deficiency is mailed to file a petition i n this Court for a redetermination of the contested deficiency . Sec . 6213(a) . By virtue of section 7502 , 10 petition that is timely mailed is deemed to be timely filed . 11 However, for-this latter rule to apply, the postmark date 12 appearing on the envelope containing the petition must be 13 timely, : that is, the postmark date must fall within th e 14 critical 90-day period . 15 It is clear in the present case that Respondent 16 mailed the notice .of deficiency to Petitioner on March .3, 17 2008 . See Magazine v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 321, 327 n .8, 18 (1987), holding that Postal Service Form .3877, . or it s 19 .equivalent-, represents, direct evidence of the date o f -20 mailing of a notice of deficiency . Therefore , the 90-day . 21 period wihin which Petitioner was required to file his, 22 ' .petition with the Court :expired on June 1, 2008 . However, 23 because that day was a Sunday, the last day to file a 24 petition with this Court expired on Monday, June 2, 2008 . 25 See sec . 7503, regarding the time for performance of acts Heritage-Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 where the last day otherwise falls on a Saturday, Sunday or 2 legal holiday . 3 However, Petitioner did not file a petition for 4 redetermination with this Court until June 9, 2008, a date 5 after the expiration of the critical 90-day filing period . 6 Moreover, the petition arrived at the Court in an envelop e 7 bearing a United States Postal Service postmark date of Jun e 8 3, 2008 . Again, a date after the expiration of the critical 9 90-day filing period . Under these circumstances, it i s 10 evident that .the petition was not-timely filed . Sec . 11 6213(a) . It necessarily follows that we lack'jurisdiction 12 to redetermine Petitioner's tax liability for the taxable 13 year in issue . 14 IX . 15 Because the record demonstrates that Petitioner 16 failed to file his petition within the time prescribed by . 17 sections 6213(a) and 7502, we are constrained to grant 18 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and 19 dismiss this case on the ground . that the petition was not 20 timely filed . . 21 Finally, we note that at the hearing o n 22 Respondent's motion, counsel for Respondent stated that " 23 Respondent had accepted Petitioner's delinquent return, that 24 Petitioner did not have an outstanding liability because of -25 withholding credits, but that Petitioner was not entitle d Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 for any refund because of the expiration of the statute of 2 limitations . We note further .that because of Petitioner's 3 late-filed petition, we may not (and therefore do not ) 4 express any opinion whether the statute of limitations bars 5 refund or any overpayment that may exist . for the taxabl e 6 year in issue . X . In order to give effect to the foregoing, a n 9 appropriate order granting Respondent's motion an d 10 dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction because of the 11 untimely petition shall be entered . 12 XI . 13 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT 14 AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . 15 (Whereupon, at 1 :40 p .m ., the bench opinion in the 16 above-entitled matter was- concluded . ) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888