TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Thomas L. Smith
Docket Number: 21127-09
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/07/2010
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 2021 7 THOMAS L . SMITH, Petitioner , V . Docket No . 21127-0 9 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent . 0 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 to petitioner .and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the proceedings of the above case before Judge Diane L . Kroupa at San Francisco, California, on April 20, 2010, containing her oral findings of-fact and opinion . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction will be granted . (Signed ) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date : Washington, D .C . May 7, 2010 SERVED MAY 11 2010 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa April 20, 2010 2 Thomas L, Smith v . Commissioner Docket No . 21127-0 9 3 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render ora l 5 findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following 6 represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . 7 These oral findings of fact and opinion shall not 8 be relied upon as precedent in any other case . This bench 9 opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 10 7459(b) of the internal Revenue Code and Rule 152 of the Tax 11 Court Rules of Practice & Procedure . All section references 12 are to the Internal Revenue Code for the years at issue, and 13 all rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice & 14 Procedure . 15 This case is before the Court on Respondent's 16 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, filed October 17 23rd, 2009 . Respondent moves to dismiss this case on the 18 ground that Petitioner did not file a petition with this 19 Court within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) o r 20 section 7502 . The Court set Respondent's motion to dismiss 21 for hearing on the Court's April 19th, 2010, trial session 22 in San Francisco, California . 23 Thomas Smith appeared pro se, and Kimberly Kazda 24 appeared on behalf of Respondent . 25 The issue for decision is whether Petitione r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 timely filed a petition with this Court . We hold that h e 2 did not, and therefore we shall grant Respondent's motion to 4 3 dismiss . 4 FINDINGS OF FACT 5 The record establishes, or the parties do not 6 dispute, the following facts : 7 Petitioner resided in California at the time he 8 filed the petition in this case . Respondent sent a 9 deficiency notice by certified mail to Petitioner at his 10 last known address on March 9th, 2009 . Responden t 11 determined in the notice that Petitioner had substantial 12 deficiencies in his federal income taxes for 2005, $82,929 ; 13 2006, 19,267 ; and 2007, $20,448 . . 14 The first page of the deficiency notice state d 15 that the last date to file a petition with this Court would 16 be June 7th, 2009 . No petition was filed by that date . In 17 fact, the only record of a petition was the petition 18 Petitioner mailed to this Court on August 28th, 2009, that 19 the Court filed on September 2nd, 2009 . 20 Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of 21 jurisdiction on October 23rd, 2009 . Respondent contends 22 that dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is required because 23 Petitioner failed to file a timely petition . 24 Petitioner filed an objection to Respondent' s 25 motion on November 19th, 2009, and filed a supplement to hi s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 objection on January 19th, 2010 . Petitioner claims that he 2 mailed the petition to this Court at the end of March when 3 he paid his monthly bills . Petitioner contends he becam e 4 concerned about the March mailing after the check he sent in 5 the package to pay his court filing fee did not clear hi s 6 banking account . 7 He thereafter mailed the petition on August 28th, 8 2009 . Petitioner attached a copy of check no . 1279, made 9 payable to the 'Clerk, United States Tax Court', date d 10 March 31st, 2009, and also attached a copy of check no . 11 1244, made payable to the same, yet dated August 28th, 2009 . 12 The Court held a hearing on Respondent's motion in 13 San Francisco, California, on April 19th, 2010 . Counsel for 14 Respondent appeared and argued in support of the pendin g 15 motion . Petitioner argues that he mailed a timely petition 16 and therefore the Court has jurisdiction even though 17 Petitioner cannot establish that he mailed the petition any 18 sooner than August 28th, 2009 . 19 OPINION 20 We now address whether Petitioner timely filed a 21 petition with this Court . The Tax Court is a court o f 22 limited jurisdiction and we may exercise our jurisdiction 23 only to the extent authorized by Congress . Naftel v . 24 Commissioner , 85 T .C . 527, 529 (1985) . 25 This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 deficiency depends on the issuance of a valid deficiency 2 notice and a timely filed petition . Rule 13(a) ; see Monge 3 4 v . Commissioner , 93 T .C . 22, 27 (1989) ; Normac, Inc . v . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 142 (1988) . 5 The Commissioner may send a deficiency notice to 6 the taxpayer by certified or registered mail afte r 7 determining a deficiency . Sec . 6212(a) . 8 Actual receipt of the notice by the taxpayer is 9 immaterial if the notice is mailed to the taxpayer at the 10 taxpayer's last known address . See King v . Commissioner , 11 857 F .2d 676, 679 (9th Cir . 1988) affg . 88 T . C . 104 2 12 (1987) ; Yusko v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 806, 810 (1987) ; 13 Frieling v . Commissioner , 81 T . C . 42, 52 (1983) . 14 The taxpayer in turn has 90 days from the date the 15 notice of deficiency is mailed to file a petition in this 16 Court for adetermination of the deficiency . Sec . 6213(a) . 17 A petition is timely if it is filed with the Court 18 within 90 days after the notice of deficiency is mailed . Id . 19 A petition that is timely mailed is deemed to be 20 timely filed . Sec . 7502 . 21 There is no dispute in this case that Respondent 22 mailed the deficiency notice to Petitioner on March 9th, 23 2009 . The 90th day following the mailing would have been 24 June 7th, 2009, which was Sunday . The 90-day period will 25 not count a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday in the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 District of Columbia as the last day . Sec . 6213(a) . 2 Accordingly the last day allowed by law to file a 3 petition in this Court was June 8th , 2009 . See sec . 7503 . 4 The petition in this case was not filed with the 5 Court until September 2nd, 2009 . A petition may still be 6 deemed timely filed if the date of the US postmark stamped 7 on the envelope in which the petition was mailed is within 8 the time prescribed for filing . See sec . 7502(a) . 9 The timely mailed , timely filed rule only applies 10 if the petition is delivered to the Court . Sec . 301 .7502- 11 1(d)( 1), Procedure & Administration Regs . ; Storelli v . 12 Commissioner , 86 T . C . 443, 447 ( 1986) . 13 Here, the only envelope containing a petition for 14 Petitioner that was delivered to the Court was dated August 15 28th, 2009 , which was 173 days after the mailing of th e 16 deficiency notice . Accordingly , the timely mailed, timely 17 filed rule dam -~ , would not, apply to Petitioner . c 18 We have carefully reviewed the record and must 19 conclude that Petitioner has submitted no proof that h e 20 mailed a petition before August 28th, 2009 . Petitioner did 21 not produce a postmarked receipt . The Court further finds 22 it suspect that the check Petitioner claims he submitted in 23 March has a higher check number than the check he submitted 24 to the Court in August . 25 We hold that the petition in this case was no t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 timely filed pursuant to either section 6213(a) or sectio n 7502 . Accordingly, we shall grant Respondent's motion t o dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed . An appropriate order will be issued grantin g Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction . This concludes the Court's oral findings of fac t and opinion in this case . (Whereupon, at 10 :32 a .m ., the bench opinion i n the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 1 2 13 14 15 16 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888