TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Marcel Garcia
Docket Number: 13801-09
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/19/2010
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 2021 7 MARCEL GARCIA, Petitioner , V . Docket No . 13801-0 9 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent .t O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice an d Procedure, it is 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 Detroit Michigan, on March 24, 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, as supplemented, will be granted . (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judg e Date : Washington, D .C . April 19, 2010 SERVED APR 2 0 2010 2 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L . Kroupa 2 March 24, 201 0 3 Marcel Garcia Docket No . 13801-0 9 4 5 The court has decided to render oral findings o f 6 fact and opinion in I this case and the following 7 represents the Court ' s Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion . 8 These oral findings f of Fact and Opinion shall not be 9 relied upon as pre c edent in any other case . 10 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 11 authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . Al l 12 section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for 13 2006, the year at issue, and all Rule references are t o 14 the Tax Court Ruleslof Practice and Procedure . 15 This case is before the Court on respondent' s 16 Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction filed December 17 1, 2009 . Respondent moves to dismiss this case on th e 18 ground that petitioner did not file the petition within 19 the time prescribedfby section 6213(a) or section 7502 . 20 The Court set respondent's motion to dismiss for hearin g 21 on the Court 's March 22, 2010 trial session in Detroit, 22 Michigan . Petitioner failed to file a response t o 1 23 respondent's motion! . 24 Marcel Garcia appeared pro se, and Alexandr a 25 Nicholaides appeared on behalf of respondent . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 The issue for decision is whether petitioner timely 2 filed a petition with this Court . We hold that he di d 3 not and therefore we shall grant respondent's motion t o 3 4 dismiss . FINDINGS OF FACT 6 The record establishes or the parties do not 7 dispute the following facts . 8 Petitioner resided in Michigan at the time he filed 9 the petition in this case . 10 Respondent sent a deficiency notice by certifie d 11 mail to petitioner at his last known address on January 12 2, 2009 . The United States Postal Service inadvertently 13 stamped the certified mail list January 2, 2008 . 14 Respondent determined in the notice that petitioner had a 15 $7,893 deficiency in Federal income tax and tha t 16 petitioner was liable for a $1,578 .60 accuracy-related 17 penalty under section 6662 for 2006 . Petitioner was 18 notified that the last day to file a petition with th e 19 Court was April 2, 2009 . 20 Petitioner failed to file a petition with the Court 21 on April 2, 2009 . Instead , petitioner mailed a petition 22 to this Court on June 2, 2009, that the Court filed o n 23 June 8, 2009 . Thus, petitioner filed a petition on June 24 8, 2009, which is 157 days after the deficiency notic e 25 was issued . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack o f 2 Jurisdiction on December 1, 2009 and a supplement to the f 3 motion on December 10, 2009 . Respondent contends that 4 dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is required becaus e 5 petitioner failed to file a timely petition . Respondent 1 6 included a copy of petitioner's deficiency notice to I 7 verify that the deficiency notice was mailed t o 8 petitioner's last known address on January 2, 2009 . A s 9 previously mentioned, petitioner failed to file a n 10 objection to respondent's motion as directed by the Court 11 in an Order dated December 3, 2009 . Petitioner wa s 12 directed to file an objection with the Court no late r 13 than January 22, 2010 . Petitioner appeared at th e 14 hearing on the dismissal motion on March 22, 2010, an d 15 asked the Court to excuse his failure to respond timely . 16 He ignored the deadline imposed by the Court in its orde r 17 to respond because he has experience in district court . 18 He stated that he did not have to file a response because 19 the Court set respondent's motion for a hearing . We fai l 1 20 to see how setting respondent's motion for a hearing 21 allows petitioner to ignore the deadline the Cour t 22 imposed for him to 'respond to respondent's motion, as 23 supplemented . ! f f 24 Despite petitioner failing to respond in writing by 25 the date specified, I the Court gave petitioner the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 r 5 1 opportunity at the hearing to explain why he did not fil e 2 a petition timely . In so doing, petitioner admitted that 3 he knew that he had until April 2, 2009, in which to file 4 a petition . He further admits that he did not file a 5 petition by that date and that he did not file a petition 6 until June 8, 2009,1over 157 days late . He again seek s 7 to have the Court excuse his late filing . He says there 8 were several extenuating circumstances that caused him to 9 miss the April 2, 2009 deadline . Petitioner first argue s 10 that he should be excused from the deadline because he 11 was outside the United States at the time or around the 12 time that respondent issued the deficiency notice . He 13 also argues that he,should be excused from the deadline 14 because he was providing additional information t o 15 respondent's agent to reduce the deficiency amount an d 16 assumed this excused him from filing a petition by the 17 April 2, 2009 deadline . 18 OPINIO N 19 We now address whether petitioner timely filed a 20 petition with this Court . The Tax Court is a court o f 21 limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise ou r 22 jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress . 23 Naftel v . Commissioner , 85 T .C . 527, 529 (1985) . This 24 Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends 25 on the issuance of a valid deficiency notice and a timel y Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i 6 1 filed petition . Rule 13(a), (c) ; Monge v . Commissioner , 2 93 T .C . 22, 27 (1989) ; Normac, Inc . v . Commissioner , 90 3 T .C . 142 (1988) . 4 The Commissioner may send a deficiency notice to 5 the taxpayer by certified or registered mail afte r 6 determining a deficiency . Sec . 6212(a) . Actual receipt 7 of the notice by the taxpayer is immaterial if the notic e 8 is mailed to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's last known 9 address . See King v . Commissioner, 857 F .2d 676, 67 9 10 (9th Cir .1988), affg . 88 T .C . 1042 (1987) ; Yusko v . 11 12 Commissioner, 89 T .C . 806, 810 (1987) ; Frieling v . Commissioner, 81 T .C . 42, 52 (1983) . Generally, a 13 taxpayer must file a petition with this Court within 90 14 days after the deficiency notice is mailed to a taxpayer 15 within the United States . Sec . 6213(a) . The Code allow s 16 a taxpayer 150 days to file a petition if the deficiency 17 notice is addressed&to a person outside the Unite d 18 States . Sec . 6213(a) . E 19 This Court has determined that the 150-day perio d 20 applies not only to, persons outside the United States on 21 settled business or'residential basis, but also t o 22 persons temporarily absent from the country . Levy v . 23 Commissioner , 76 T .C . 228, 231 (1981) . We will tak e 24 petitioner at his word that he was out of the country 25 when respondent issued the deficiency notice . We not e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 that more information is generally required for a 2 taxpayer to prove that he or she was outside the United 3 States . We therefore shall apply the 150-day filin g 4 period requirement to petitioner . 5 A petition is timely if it is filed with the Court 6 within 90 days, or 150 days if applicable, after th e 7 deficiency notice is mailed . Sec . 6213(a) . A petition 8 that is timely mailed is deemed to be timely filed . Sec . 9 7502 . There is no dispute in this case that responden t 10 mailed the deficiency notice to petitioner on January 2, 11 2009 . Petitioner had until June 1, 2009, to file a 12 petition with this Court . Petitioner did not file the 13 petition with this Court timely under the 150-day rule . 14 Instead of filing the petition by June 1, which is the 15 deadline under the 150-day rule, petitioner did not file 16 the petition until June 8, 2009 . 17 There is another special rule that applies t o 18 determine whether there was a timely filing . A petition 19 may still be deemed timely filed if the date of the U .S . 20 postmark stamped on the envelope in which the petition 21 was mailed is within the time prescribed for filing . See 22 sec . 7502 (a) . Here,[ the envelope containing the petition 23 was dated June 2, 20!09, which was 151 days after the 24 mailing of the deficIiency notice . Accordingly, the 25 timely mailed timely filed rule does not apply t o Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 petitioner . 2 Petitioner also seeks to excuse missing th e 3 deadline by arguing that he was providing information to 4 respondent's agent to decrease the deficiency at the time 5 the petition was due. and that working with responden t 6 somehow allowed him to disregard the deadline . In (,7 effect, petitioner argues that the parties can confer 8 jurisdiction to the Court . We disagree . We hav e 9 repeatedly held that jurisdiction may not be conferred by 10 agreement of the parties . Evans Pubig ., Inc . v . 11 Commissioner , 119 T .C . 242, 247 n . 5 (2002) . Instead, 12 the Court must determine whether the jurisdictiona l 13 requirements have been met . Id . The Code is clear that 14 a taxpayer outside of the United States has 150 days from 15 the date the Commissioner issued the deficiency notice to 16 file a petition with this Court . Petitioner did not mail 17 the petition within the 150-day period after respondent 18 issued the deficiency notice to petitioner . We are not a 19 Court of equity and cannot ignore the law to achieve an 20 equitable end . Yeomans v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2009- 21 216 . Accordingly, we cannot allow the parties to extend 22 the deadline petitioner had to file a timely petition . 23 We hold that the petition in this case was no t 24 timely filed pursuant to either section 6213(a) o r 25 section 7502 . Accordingly, we shall grant respondent's Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 9 1 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, a s 2 Supplemented , on the ground that the petition was not 3 timely filed . 4 Petitioner cannot pursue his case in this Court . 5 Petitioner is not left without a remedy, however . 6 Petitioner may pay the tax, file a claim for refund with 7 the Internal Revenue' Service , and, if his claim i s 8 denied, sue for a refund in the appropriate Federa l 9 District Court or the U .S . Court of Federal Claims . Se e 10 McCormick v . Commissioner , 55 T .C . 138, 142 n .5 (1970) 11 An appropriate ; 1 order will be issued granting 12 respondent ' s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction , 13 as supplemented . 14 This concludesthe Court's Oral Findings of Fac t 15 and opinion in this ease . 16 (Whereupon, at 9 :47 a .m ., the bench opinion in th e 17 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888