TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Wilfredo A. Ruiz-Caban
Docket Number: 20805-14
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/13/2015
Pages: 7

CZ UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 WILFREDO A. RUIZ-CABAN, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 20805-14 ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to the determination of the Court as set forth in its bench opinion rendered on April 30, 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 Miami, Florida, 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 will be issued. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. May 13, 2015 SERVED May 14 2015 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis Carluzzo 2 April 30, 2015 3 Wilfredo A. Ruiz-Caban v. Commissioner 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Docket No. 20805-14 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 grant'e.d by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. 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 for the redetermination of a deficiency is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, filed November 3, 2014. Petitioner's objection to respondent's 23 motion was filed November 24, 2014, and respondent's 24 25 response to petitioner's objection was filed December 17, 2014. By Order dated January 20, 2015, 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 5 respondent's motion was assigned to be for disposition. See rule 180. A hearing was conducted on respondent's motion in Miami, Florida, on April 27, 2015. Brandon S. Cline appeared on behalf of respondent and argued in support of the motion. 6 Wilfredo A. Ruiz-Caban appeared on his own behalf and 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opposed it. In a notice of deficiency dated February 27, 2014 (notice), respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 2010 Federal income tax. The notice was sent to petitioner by certified mail at an address in Coral Springs, Florida (previous address). The last day to have petitioned this Court in response to the notice was May 28, 2014. The petition was filed well beyond that date on September 3, 2014. Because petitioner was no longer residing at the previous address at the time the notice was issued, the notice was returned undelivered to respondent. At the time the notice was issued, petitioner was living at an address in Tamarac, Florida (current address), which is also the address shown for petitioner on the petition. Although some details are lacking, the record shows that petitioner notified the U.S. Postal Service of his current address sometime during October 2013. For reasons 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 not clear, the notice was not forwarded to petitioner at his current address. According to respondent, the previous address is petitioner's "last known address" within the meaning of section 6212 because as of the date the notice was issued and in the absence of clear and concise notice of a different address, that is the address shown on petitioner's most recently filed Federal income tax return (2012 return). See Abeles 10 v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1035 (1988). 11 Petitioner agrees that the previous address is the 12 13 address shown on his 2012 return, and he does not claim that he gave respondent clear and concise 14 written notice of his current address before the 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 notice was issued. Instead, petitioner argues that the change of address that he registered with the U.S. Postal Service operated to change his "last known address" from his previous address to his current address. See section 301.6212-2(b) (2), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Respondent argues that the record does not contain sufficient information to determine whether that regulation applies. If it does, then the notice is invalid and we lack jurisdiction on that ground. if the regulation does not apply, then the notice is valid and we lack 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 jurisdiction because the petitioner was not filed 2 within the period prescribed by section 6213(a), as 3 4 5 pointed out in respondent's motion. See Rule 13(a); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989). Either way, we would be without jurisdiction and 6 petitioner's challenges to the deficiency would have 7 8 to be, and could be made in a different Federal court (refund procedures) or a different proceeding in this 9 Court (section 6330(d) proceeding). 10 11 12 13 14 As it turned out, because of a contact made by petitioner to one of respondent's service centers, a copy of the notice was mailed to petitioner at his current address on June 4, 2014 (remailed notice), and the petition could be treated as timely filed 15 with respect to the remailed notice. See section 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6213(a) and 7502. That being so, petitioner argues that the Court has jurisdiction. The observation made earlier in this bench opinion regarding the consequences of an improperly address notice of deficiency notwithstanding, petitioner does not argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction in this case upon that ground. Relying upon cases such as Follum v. Commissioner, 128 F.2d 118 (2d Cir. 1997) and Andrews v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-339, respondent 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 argues that the remailed notice does not extend or otherwise allow for an additional period within which the deficiency determined in the notice could be challenged in a section 6213(a) proceeding in this 5 Court. In Follum and Andrews the relevant notices of 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deficiency were properly mailed to the taxpayers' last known addresses. We would agree with respondent if, as with the notices of deficiency mailed to the taxpayers in those cases, it was clear here that the notice was mailed to petitioner's last known address. But it is not so clear. As noted above, resolving the dispute between the parties as to petitioner's last known address would require the dismissal of this case on one ground or another only to have the case, in effect, resurface in a different case before us, or in a different Federal court. With that likelihood consequence in mind, proceeding in that manner makes little sense to us. Instead, we proceed, without finding, as though the notice was not sent to petitioner's last known address, but acquire jurisdiction over the deficiency placed in dispute in the petition because the petition was timely filed in response to the remailed notice. In closing we think it appropriate to note 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 that proceeding in the manner we have is consistent 2 with a liberal construction of section 6213(a) as 3 4 5 6 7 applied in other circumstances by other Federal courts in order to preserve this Court's jurisdiction in a case commenced under that section. See e.g. Tenzer v. Commissioner, 285 F.2d 956, 958 (9 r. 1960) ; Eppler v. Commissioner, 188 F.2d 95, 98 (7th 8 Cir. 1951) . That being so, an order denying respondent's motion will be issued. This concludes the Court's bench opinion in this matter. (Whereupon, at 2:27 p.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com