TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Alberto Lopez
Docket Number: 20840-11
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/06/2012
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D . C . 20 217 ALBERTO LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU , Re spondent . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Docket No. 20840-11 Pursuant to Rule 152 (b) , T x Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo a January 19, 2012, containing hi oral opinion rendered at the trial of the conclus on of trial. Los Angeles, California, on findings of fact and the bove case beföre Special the pages of the In accordance with the ora findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order granting r spondent's motion and dismissing this case for lack of jurisdict on will be entered. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 6, 2012 SERVED FEB - 7 20î2 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 Bench Opinion by Speci l Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo January 19, 2012 Alberto Lopez v. Commissioner Docket No. 20840-11 THE COURT: he Court has decided to render oral findings of fact nd opinion (a bench opinion in this case. Sect on re e ces made in this bench opinion are to the Int rnal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period, and Rule references are to the ax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench o inion is made pursuant to the authority granted by s ction 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, s amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Pra tice and Procedure. Except as provided in Rule 152(b , this bench opinion shall not be relied upon as prec dent in any other case. This case fo the redeterminations of deficiencies is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for ack of Jurisdiction, filed November 8, 2011. By rder dated December 5, 2011, respondent's motion was assigned for disposition in accordance with sectidn 7443A(3) and Rule 182. According t respondent's motion, the petition was not file within the period prescribed by section 6213(a). Pet'tioner's objection to Heritage eporting 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 4 respondent's motion wa filed November 30, 2011. In his objection, petitio er suggests that the relevant notices of deficiency ere not mailed to his last known address. See se . 6212(b). A hearing was conducted on respondent's motion in Los Angeles, California, on January 17, 2012. Hans F. Famularc appeared on behalf of respondent and argued in support of the motion. Petitioner, who is self-represented, appeared and opposed the motion. The undisput d facts relied upon by respondent in support f his motion are easily summarized. Petitione 's 2008 Federal income tax return was filed on April 15, 2009 (2008 return). That return shows peti ioner's address on Pacific Street in Highland, Ca ifornia (Highland address). Petitioner's 2009 Fede±al income tax return was filed on July 19, 2010 (2009 return). Petitioner's 2009 return shows his address at Duffy Street in San Bernardino, California (San Bernardino address). Apparently petitioner 2ever resided at the Highland address; that is the address of his children's mother. It is not clear whethec he ever resided at the San Bernardino address. If he did, the first time he notified respondent of that address was on his 2009 Heritage R=porting Corporation (2 2) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 return. In a notice f deficiency dated February 8, 2010, respondent deter ined a deficiency in petitioner's 2004 Fede al income tax (2004 notice). The 2004 notice is add essed and was mailed to petitioner at the High and. address . In a notice of deficiency dated Febru ry 25, 2010, respondent determined a deficienc in petitioner's 2005 Federal income tax (2005 notic ) . Duplicate originals of the 2005 notice were maile to petitioner, one to his Highland address, and he other to his San Bernardino address. The petition, filed September 9, 2011, challenging the defici ncies determined in the 2004 notice and the 2005 no ic (collectively, the notices), was filed we 1 beyond the statutory period prescribed for doing s . According. to pe t it ioner ' s obj ec t ion, the notices were sent to a address that he "no longer occup [ied] " . Because etitioner is self -represented, we broadly construe th t statement to be a suggestion that neither notice wa sent to his last known address . Because noth ng in the record suggests that an address other than the Highland address or the San Bernardino address has any relevance here, we further construe petitioner's position to be that the San Heritage Reporting Corporation (2(2) 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 Bernardino address was his last known address at the time the notices were ssued. Because duplicate originals of the 2005 otice were addres'sed and mailed to petitioner at both addresses, petitioner's claim that the not1ce was no malled to his last known address is easily reje ted, and we need only consider whether the 2004 noticÅ was properly sent to petitioner's last know address. Respondent c rrectly points out that for purposes of section 62 2, a taxpayer's last known address is the address shown on the taxpayer's most recently filed Federal income tax return, absent clear and concise notice of different address. Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 019 (1988). Here, petitioner's 2008 return was the Fe eral income tax return most recently filed by peti ioner before the issuance of the 2004 notice. The 008 return shows the Highland address, and the 2004 otice is addressed and was mailed to petitioner a that address. Petitioner does not claim that he gave respondent notice of the San Bernardino address bef re the 2004 notice was issued. Accordingly, we find t at for purposes of section 6212, the Highland address was petitioner's last known address as of the date the 2004 notice was issued. The Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a Heritage R porting Corporation (2 2) 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 deficiency in Federal ncome tax depends upon the issuance of a valid no ice of deficiency and a timely- filed petition. Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988) ; Rule 13 (a) , (c) . If , as here, a notice of deficiency is mailed td a taxpayer's last known address, then the noti e is valid for jurisdictional purposes. Sec. 6212 (b) ; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 52 (1983). T is is so even if the notice is never actually receive by the taxpayer. King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 679 (9th Circuit 1988), aff'q 88 T.C. 1042 (19 7); Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 810 (1987 ; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 52 (1983). Once a valid notice of deficiency is issued tp a taxpayer, the taxpayer has a limited amount of time generally 90 or 150 days, to petition this Court ln response .. Sec . 6213 (a) . Taking into account th dates that the notices were i'ssued, the petition i this case was filed long after such periods expired. Because the petition was not timely filed the Court is without jurisdiction, and the case will be ·dism ssed upon that ground. To reflect he foregoing, an appropriate order granting respon ent's motion will be entered. This conclu es the Court's oral findings of Heritage Rhaporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fac t and opinion in th s case . (Whereupon, t 9:44 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled atter was concluded. ) 8 // / / // / / // // // // / / // // // // // // // // / / // // // / / Heritage R r62 4 poration