TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Ronald E. & Linda D. Talbot
Docket Number: 2149-10S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/16/2011
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT 20217 WASHINGTON, D.C. DARROW H. SELLERS AND GAIL A. STRACUZZI, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 18195-10S O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioners and to respondent a copy of transcript of Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Fresno, California, on January 13, 2011, containing his oral opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial. the pages of the trial of the above case before Special the findings of fact and In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order granting respondent's motion, as supplemented, and dismissing this case for lack of entered. jurisdiction will be (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 16, 2011 Sišï® RB 1 8 2011 3 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo Sellers & Stracuzzi v. Commissioner Docket No. 18195-10S January 13,2011 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. This proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency is a small tax case conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure. This case is before the Court on Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, filed September 24, 2010, and supplemented on December 20, 2010. Respondent's motion, as supplemented, is based upon the ground that the petition in this case was not filed within 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 the period prescribed by section 6213(a). Petitioners' objection to Respondent's motion was filed November 3, 2010. A hearing was conducted on Respondent's motion, as supplemented, in Fresno, California, on January 10, 2011. Nathan H. Hall appeared on behalf of Respondent, and argued in support of the motion. There was no appearance by or on behalf of Petitioners at the hearing, but their letter dated December 20th, 2010, received by the Court on December 22nd, 2010, will be filed on the date received as Petitioners' written statement in lieu of attendance at the hearing. See Rule 50(c). In a notice of deficiency dated and sent by certified mail to Petitioners on October 19, 2009, Respondent determined a $10,726 deficiency in their 2005 federal income tax (the notice of deficiency). The notice of deficiency was properly sent to Petitioners, and they do not suggest otherwise. The petition in this case, which was sent to the Court by regular mail on August 11, 2010, was received and filed on August 16, 2010. Both dates are well beyond January 19, 2010, the last day that a petition filed in response to the notice of deficiency would have to have been filed in order to be considered timely. See sections 6213(a) and 7503. This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in cases such as this one depends upon the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Monge v. Commissioer, 93 TC 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 TC 142, 147 (1988); Rule 13 (a), (c). Because a document received by the Court is generally treated as filed on the date it is received -- see United States v. Lombardo, 241 US 73 (1916) -- it would seem clear that the Court is without jurisdiction in this case. Petitioners do not share our clear view. According to Petitioners, the Court has jurisdiction because on November 30, 2009, a date within the relevant filing period, a petition in response to the notice of deficiency was properly stamped, addressed, and mailed to the Court. Although Petitioners do not expressly cite to it, it appears that they are relying on section 7502. That section allows for an exception to the general rule regarding the date a document is considered filed, as described in Lombardo, and establishes what is commonly referred to as the 'timely mailed is timely filed' rule. Briefly stated, that rule provides that certain documents, including Tax Court petitions, will be considered timely filed even if received outside of the prescribed period for doing so if the document was properly placed in the mail within that prescribed period. For purposes of section 7502, the date the document is mailed, which in turn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 is treated as the date the document is filed, is definitely established by the date shown on the postmark made by the US Postal Service. Section 7502(a); Leventis v. Commissioner, 49 TC 353, 354 (1968). We proceed by assuming, without finding, that Petitioners' claim regarding the November 30, 2009, mailing is accurate. Nevertheless, for the following reasons and under the circumstances, the grounds advanced by Petitioners are ineffective to support a finding of jurisdiction in this case. First and foremost, the Court did not receive any petition from them prior to the one filed on August 16, 2010. Second, there is no evidence of any postmark having been made on the envelope containing the petition allegedly sent to the Court on November 30, 2009. See Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1992). Finally, Petitioners do not suggest, much less have they established, that the November 30, 2009, mailing is evidenced by either a registered or certified mail receipt. Consequently, the provisions of section 7502 are not applicable. That being so, the general rules that provide (1) that a document is treated as filed by the Court on the date it is received by the Court -- see United States v. Lombardo/ supra -- and (2) that the risk of loss or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 nondelivery of a document sent by other than registered or certified mail rests with the sender -- see Walden v. Commissioner, 90 TC 947 (1988) ; see also section 301.7502- 1 (c ) (2) , Procedural & Administrat ive Regs . - - apply here . Applying those general rules constrains us to find that the petition in this case was not timely filed. It follows that the Court is without jurisdiction in this case. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order granting Respondent's motion, as supplemented, and dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction will be entered. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and I believe that concludes all of the matters that we had scheduled during this trial session. So with that, this session is adjourned, and we can go off the record. (Whereupon, at 2:42 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 UNITED STATES TAX COURT 20217 WASHINGTON, D.C. DARROW H. SELLERS AND GAIL A. STRACUZZI, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 18195-10S ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Pursuant to the determination of the Court as set forth in its bench opinion rendered on January 13, 2011, it is ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction, December 20, 2010, of within the time prescribed by I.R.C. section 6213(a). jurisdiction upon the ground that the petition was not filed filed on September 24, 2010, and supplemented on is granted and this case is dismissed for lack Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Entered: UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 DARROW H. SELLERS AND GAIL A. STRACUZZI, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 18195-10S ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Pursuant to the determination of the Court as set forth in its bench opinion rendered on January 13, 2011, it is ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction, December 20, 2010, of within the time prescribed by I.R.C. section 6213(a). jurisdiction upon the ground that the petition was not filed filed on September 24, 2010, and supplemented on is granted and this case is dismissed for lack Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Entered: UNITED STATES TAX COURT 20217 WASHINGTON, D.C. DARROW H. SELLERS AND GAIL A. STRACUZZI, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 18195-10S ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Pursuant to the determination of the Court as set forth in its bench opinion rendered on January 13, 2011, it is ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction, December 20, 2010, of within the time prescribed by I.R.C. section 6213(a). jurisdiction upon the ground that the petition was not filed filed on September 24, 2010, and supplemented on is granted and this case is dismissed for lack Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Entered: