TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Robert Dwayne Edwards
Docket Number: 1364-09
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/22/2010
Pages: 7

0 , ft, V, ; ' Kro u /vk UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C . 2021 7 ROBERT DWAYNE EDWARDS, Petitioner , v . ) Docket No . 1364-0 9 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . O 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 Seattle, Washington, .on February 24, 2010, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . f (Signed) Diane L . Kroupa Judge Date : Washington, D .C . March 22, 2010 REED MAR 2 3 2010 3 1 BENCH OPINION BY JUDGE DIANE L . KROUPA 2 ROBERT V . EDWARDS V . COMMISSIONE R 3 DOCKET NO . : 1364-09 4 FEBRUARY 24, 201 0 5 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 6 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the 7 following represents the court's oral findings of fact 8 and opinion . These oral findings of fact and opinion 9 shall not be relied upon as precedent in any othe r 10 case . 11 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 12 authority granted in section 7459(b) and Rule 152 . 13 All section references are to the Internal Revenue 14 Code for 2006, the year at issue, and all Rul e 15 references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 16 Procedure . 17 This case is before the Court on 18 respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack o f 19 Jurisdiction filed December 10, 2009 . Respondent 20 moves to dismiss this case on the ground tha t 21 petitioner did not file the petition within the time 22 prescribed by section 6213(a) or section 7502 . The 23 Court set respondent's motion to dismiss for hearing 24 on the Court's . February 22, 2010, trial session in 25 Seattle, Washington . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 v 4 1 Neither petitioner or anyone authorized to 2 represent petitioner appeared . Bob Boeshaar appeared 3 on behalf of respondent . 4 The issue for decision is whether petitioner 5 timely filed a petition with this Court . We hold that 6 he did not and therefore we shall grant respondent' s 7 motion to dismiss . 8 FINDINGS OF FAC T 9 The record establishes or the parties do not 10 dispute the following facts . 11 Petitioner resided in Washington at the time 12 he filed the petition in this case . 13 Respondent sent a deficiency notice b y 14 certified mail to petitioner at his last known address 15 on October 3, 2008 . Respondent determined in the 16 notice that petitioner had a $3,550 deficiency in his 17 Federal income tax for 2006 by disallowing him two 18 claimed dependency exemptions and a claimed child tax 19 credit . The deficiency notice stated that petitioner 20 had until January 2, 2009, in which to file a petition 21 to contest respondent's determination in th e 22 deficiency notice . January 2, 2009, was the end of 23 the 90-day period for timely filing-a petition and 24 such date was not a legal holiday in the District of 25 Columbia . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Y 5 1 Petitioner failed to file a petition by 2 January 2, 2009 . Instead, petitioner mailed a 3 petition to this Court on January 9, 2009, which date 4 was 98 days after the mailing of the deficienc y 5 notice . The Court filed the petition on January 16, 6 2009, which date was 105 days after mailing th e 7 deficiency notice . 8 Respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss fo r 9 Lack of Jurisdiction on December 10, 2009 . Respondent 10 contends that dismissal for lack of jurisdiction i s 11 required because petitioner failed to file a timely 12 petition . Respondent included the declaration of 13 Tanga Richardson, Supervisory Tax Examining 14 Technician, to verify that the deficiency notice was 15 mailed to petitioner's last known address on October 16 3, 2008 . Petitioner has not filed an objection to 17 respondent's motion nor did petitioner appear at the 18 hearing to object to respondent's motion or file a 19 written statement pursuant to .Rule 50(c) in lieu of 20 attending the hearing . 21 OPINION 22 We now address whether petitioner timel y 23 filed a petition with this Court . The Tax Court is a 24 court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our 25 jurisdiction only to the extent authorized b y Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 Congress . Naftel v . Commissioner , 85 T .C . 527, 529 2 (1985) . This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a 3 deficiency depends on the issuance of a vali d 4 deficiency notice and a timely filed petition . Rule 5 13(a), (c) ; Monge v . Commissioner , 93 T .C . 22, 2 7 (1989) ; Normac, Inc . v . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 142 7 (1988) . The Commissioner may send a deficienc y 9 notice to the taxpayer by certified or registered mail 10 after determining a deficiency . Sec . 6212(a) . Actual 11 receipt of the notice by the taxpayer is immaterial if 12 the notice is mailed to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's 13 last known address . See King v . Commissioner , 85 7 14 F .2d 676, 679 (9th .Cir . 1988), affg . 88 T .C . 1042 15 (1987) ; Yusko v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 806, 810 16 (1987) ; Frieling v . Commissioner , . 81 T .C . 42, 5 2 17 (1983) . The taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days (or 15 0 18 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside of 19 the United States) from the date the deficiency notice 20 is mailed to file a petition in this Court for a 21 -redetermination of the deficiency . Sec . 6213(a) . 22 petition is timely if it is filed with the Court 23 within 90 days after the' notice of deficiency is 24 mailed . Id . A petition that is timely mailed is 25 deemed to be timely filed . Sec . 7502 . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 There is no dispute in this case tha t 2 respondent mailed the deficiency notice to petitioner 3 on October 3, 2008 . The 90th day following the 4 mailing would have been January 1, 2009, which was a 5 legal holiday in the District of Columbia . 6 Accordingly, the last day allowed by law to file a 7 petition in this Court was January 2, 2009 . See sec . 8 6213(a) . The petition in this case was not filed with 9 the court until January 16, 2009 . 10, A petition may still be deemed timely filed 11 if the date of the U .S . postmark stamped on th e 12 envelope in which the petition was mailed is within 13 the time prescribed for filing . See sec . 7502(a) . 14 Here, the envelope containing the petition was dated 15 January 9, 2009, which was 98 days after the mailing 16 of the deficiency notice . Accordingly, the timely 17 mailed timely filed rule would not apply t o 18 petitioner . 19 We hold that the petition in this case was 20 not timely filed pursuant to either section 6213(a) or 21 section 7502 . Accordingly, we shall gran t 22 respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack o f 23 Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not 24 timely filed . 25 An appropriate order will be issued granting Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of 2 jurisdiction . 3 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 4 fact and opinion in this case . 5 (Whereupon, at 9 :12 a .m ., the bench opinion 6 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 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