TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Dolores Pavon-Caceres
Docket Number: 17562-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/06/2008
Pages: 10

UNITED STATES TAX{COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 DOLORES PAVON-CACERES , Petitione r V . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) Respondent O R D E R ADM . RECORD& SERVICE Z~m CAL . SPAT . Docket No . 17562-07S . S .T . JUDGE FILE S Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice an d Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Cour 0 shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy transcript of the hearing of the above Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at Winston-S April 15, 2008, containing his oral fin rendered at the conclusion of the hear i f the pages of th e ase before Special Trial lem, North Carolina on ings of fact and opinion g . In accordance with the oral findin Cl s of fact and opinion, a n Order Of Dismissal For Lack OfJurisdiction will be entered . (Signed) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . May 6, 2008 SERVED MAY - 9 2008 2 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . 2 Docket Number 17562-07S April 15, 200 8 3 I . 4 THE COURT : THE CO T HAS DECIDED TO RENDER 5 ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPI ION IN THIS CASE, AN D 6 THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE 9OURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF 7 FACT AND OPINION . THE ORAL F NDINGS~OF FACT AND 8 OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY 9 OTHER CASE . 10 II . 11 This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax 12 Case, pursuant to the provisi ns of section 7463 of 13 the Internal Revenue Code of 986, as amended, and 14 Rules 170 through 175 of the LLrax Court Rules o f 15 Practice and Procedure . 16 III . 17 This bench opinion s 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 th e 20 Tax Court Rules of Practice a nd Procedure . 21 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, all 22 section numbers refer to the, Internal Revenue Code, a s 23 amended, and all Rule numbersi refer to the Tax Court 24 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 62 8 -4888 3 1 IV . 2 J . Craig Young 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 November 21, 2007, this case wa s 8 calendared for trial on April 14, 2008, in Winston- 9 Salem, North Carolina . Howev r, on February 8, 2008, 10 respondent filed a Motion To ismiss For Lack O f 11 Jurisdiction, a copy of which was served by respondent 12 on petitioner by mail on February 7, 2008 . In hi s 13 motion, respondent contends t at this case should be 14 dismissed on the ground that the petition was no t 15 filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) o r 16 section 7502 . 17 In his motion, respondent did not advise 18 whether petitioner objectito, or concurred in, the 19 granting of the motion . See rule 50(a) . Thus, by 20 Order dated February 12, 2008 . and served on 21 petitioner by certified mail n that same day, the 22 Court directed petitioner to tile, on or before Marc h 23 11, 2008, an objection or oth r response to 24 respondent's aforementioned motion . However , the cop y 25 of the Order that was served on petitioner was Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 returned to the Court by the P stal Servic e 2 undelivered, the envelope cont ining the Order being 3 marked both "unclaimed" and "u able to forward . " 4 Thereupon, the Court re-served the order, this time by 5 regular first-class mail, on M rch 14, 2008 . 6 A few days later, byjOrder dated March 20 , 7 2008, and served on petitioner by certified mail on 8 March 21, 2008, the Court cale dared respondent's 9 motion for hearing on April 14, 2008, in Winston- 10 Salem, North Carolina . As of pril 14, 2008, neither 11 the Court's March 20, 2008 Or r nor the re-service of 12 the Court's February 12, 2008 rder had been returned 13 to the Court by the Postal Se ice undelivered . 14 Pursuant to notice, this case was calle d 15 from the calendar on April 14,I 2008, in Winston - Salem . 16 Counsel for respondent appeared . In contrast, ther e 17 was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner . 18 Later that day, this case was recalled from th e 19 calendar . Again, there was no appearance by or o n 20 behalf of petitioner . Counsel, for respondent appeared 21 and argued in support of his February 8, 2008 motion 22 to dismiss . 23 VI . 24 Because this Court may only hear and decid e 25 a case on the merits if the C urt has jurisdiction , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 the threshold issue for decisi n is necessaril y 2 whether Dolores Pavon-Caceres (petitioner) filed her 3 petition for redetermination of deficiency within the 4 90-day period prescribed by sections 6213(a) and 7502 . 5 VII . 6 The facts necessaryIto a resolution of the 7 jurisdictional issue are as f o llows : 8 On April 23, 2007, espondent mailed a 9 notice of deficiency to petitioner . In the notice, 10 respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 11 federal income tax for the to able year 2005 in th e 12 amount of $4,625 . 13 The notice was sent~to petitioner by 14 certified mail addressed to her at P .O . Box 363 , 15 Harrells, North Carolina 2844 . We shall hereinafter 16 refer to this address as the Box 363 address . 17 The first page of the notice of deficienc y 18 states as follows : "Last Day to Petition Tax Court : 19 July 23, 2007 . " 20 On August 7, 2007, etitioner filed a 21 petition with this Court seeking a redetermination of 22 the deficiency determined by irespondent in the notic e 23 of deficiency . The petition arrived at the Court by 24 certified mail in an envelope bearing a united state s 25 Postal Service postmark date of August 2, 2007 . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 The address appearing on the petition, a s 2 well as the address appearing n the envelope in which 3 the petition was mailed to the Court , is the Box 36 3 4 address ; i .e ., the same addres to which the notice o f 5 deficiency was sent . 6 As indicated, respondent filed a Motion T o 7 Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction on February 8, 2008 . 8 In the motion , respondent contends that dismissal fo r 9 lack of jurisdiction is required because petitione r 10 failed to file a timely petition . 1 1 12 VIII . This Court's jurisdi ction to redetermine a 13 deficiency in income tax depe ds on the issuance of a 14 valid notice of deficiency a n a timely-file d 15 petition . Morge v . Commissioner , 93 T .C . 22, 2 7 16 (1989) ; Normac, Inc . v . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 142, 14 7 17 (1988 ) ; Rule 13(a), (c) . Sec ion 6212(a) expressly 18 authorizes respondent, afte r etermining a deficiency , 19 to send a notice of deficienc to the taxpayer by 20 certified or registered mail . It is sufficient for 21 jurisdictional purposes if re pondent mails the notic e 22 of deficiency to the taxpayer at the taxpayer ' s "las t 23 known address ." Sec . 6212(b)F Frieling v . 24 Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 52 (1983 ) . Indeed, if th e 25 notice is mailed to the taxpa er at the taxpayer' s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 62844888 7 1 last known address, actual rec ipt of the notice by 2 the taxpayer is immaterial . S e King v . Commissioner , 3 857 F .2d 676, 679 (9th Cir . 1938), affg . 88 T .C . 1042 4 (1987) ; Yusko v . Commissioner, 89 T .C . 806, 81 0 5 (1987) ; Frieling v . Commission r, 81 T .C . 42, 5 2 6 (1983) . The taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days, or 150 7 days if the notice is addressed to aperson outside 8 the United States, from the date the notice of . 9 deficiency is mailed to file a petition in this Court 10 for a redetermination of the c ntested deficiency . 11 Sec . 6213(a) . By virtue of suction 7502, a petition 12 that is timely mailed is deemed to be timely filed . 13 It is clear in the present case tha t 14 respondent mailed the notice of deficiency to 15 petitioner on April 23, 2007 . See Magazine v . 16 Commissioner , 89 T .C . 321, 327 n .8 (1987), holding 17 that Postal Service Form 3877 or its equivalen t 18 represents direct evidence of the date of mailing o f 19 the notice of deficiency . Therefore, the 90-da y 20 period within which petitioner was required to file 21 her petition with the Court eIpired on Monday, July 22 23, 2007 . See sec . 7503, regarding the time fo r 23 performance of acts where the last day otherwise fall s 24 on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday . However , 25 petitioner did not file a petition for redetermination Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 with this Court until August 7 2007, a date after the 2 expiration of the critical 90-lay period . Moreover , 3 the petition arrived at the Co art in an envelope 4 bearing a U .S . Postal Service postmark date of August 5 2, 2007, once again a date after the expiration of the 6 critical 90-day period . Under these circumstances , 7 respondent contends that the petition was not timel y 8 filed and that the Court lacksljurisdiction t o 9 redetermine petitioner's liability for the deficiency 10 for the taxable year in issue . 11 IX . 12 The defense most commonly asserted b y 13 taxpayers in cases such as the present one is that a 14 particular notice of deficiency was not mailed to the 15 taxpayer at the taxpayer's la t known address and is 16 therefore invalid . However, this defense has not been 17 raised in the present case, and the record suggest s 18 that any suc'i defense would b unavailing, given the 19 fact that petitioner had the ame address at the time 20 when the notice of deficiency was mailed and when the 21 petition was filed . Thus, there is no reason t o 22 belabor the matter, and we proceed on the basis that 23 respondent issued a valid notice of deficiency . 24 X . 25 In view of the fore oing, we hold that the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-14888 9 1 petition in this case was not imely filed pursuant to 2 either section 6213(a) or sect on 7502 . Accordingly, 3 we shall grant respondent's Mo ion to Dismiss for Lac k 4 of Jurisdiction, filed Februa 8, 2008, and we shall 5 dismiss this case for lack of urisdiction on the 6 ground that the petition was n t timely filed . 7 8 9 XI . Finally, a postscri t . Although petitioner cannot pursue a case i n 10 this Court, petitioner is not without a judicial 11 remedy . Thus, petitioner may pay the determine d 12 liability, file a claim for r fund with the Internal 13 Revenue Service, and, if the laim is denied, sue for 14 a refund in the appropriate F deral district court or 15 the United States Court of Fe eral Claims . Se e 16 McCormick v . Commissioner , 55,i'T .C . 138, 142 n . 5 17 (1970) . 18 Petitioner may als o have an administrative 19 remedy if she is able to cony nce respondent, as she 20 asserts she did for two prior taxable years, of the 21 allegations made in paragraph 4 of the petition . 22 However, any administrative resolution is strictly a 23 matter for the parties to settle and is not a matter 24 over which this Court has any jurisdiction whatsoever . 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628+4888 10 1 XII . 2 THIS CONCLUDES THE C URT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF 3 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . 4 (Whereupon , at 11 :17 a .m ., the bench opinion 5 in the above - entitled matter as concluded . ) 6 7 8 9 10 11 / / 12 13 // 1 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reportin Corporation (202) 628 4888