TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Nicholas P. Austin
Docket Number: 24210-11S
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/30/2012
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 NICHOLAS P. AUSTIN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Docket No. 24210-11S. 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 petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the hearing in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at New Orleans, Louisiana, on April 19, 2012, containing his oral findings of the hearing. fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of In accordance with the oral fact and opinion, respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction will be granted. findings of (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. April 30, 2012 SERVED MAY -7 2012 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BENCH OPINION BY JUDGE JOSEPH ROBERT GOEKE AUSTIN v. COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO. : 24210 -11S April 19, 2012 3 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: The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This case is before the Court pursuant to the provisions of Section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time the petition was filed. Pursuant to Section 7463 the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other Court. This opinion is being rendered pursuant to the authority provided in Section 7459 of the Internal Revenue Code and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This case is before the Court after a hearing on Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. It is well established that this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and our jurisdiction to review a notice of deficiency determination by Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 Respondent is limited to a situation where the Petitioner has filed a timely petition before the United States Tax Court. In the present case Respondent issued a notice of deficiency and it is undisputed that Respondent mailed such a notice to the address reflected on Petitioner's federal income tax return for the year 2009. This was the same address at which Petitioner's mother resided in 2009, which address is in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, and will hereinafter be referred to as the Bay St. Louis address. The Court finds that this address is the last known address'B% Respondent pursuant to Section A 6612(b) (1), which authorizes Respondent to issue a notice of deficiency to the "last known address of the Petitioner." . The fact is undisputed that the notice of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 __ - -F9---def i-ciency--was-is sued-by- the-Re spondent-on- November 20 21 22 23 24 25 16*, 2010, and the record in this case reflects that the petition was not filed until October 24*, 2011, which is well after the 90-day period for filing a petition in a timely manner. The 90-day period expired on February 14*, 2011. Petitioner has asserted that at the time the 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 5 notice of deficiency was issued, he did not reside at the Bay St. Louis address, but rather was in the employ of the tugboat company and was either on the tugboat or at a location provided by the tugboat company. It's also been asserted that he may have actually been outside the United States. The period for responding to a notice of deficiency issued for the taxpayer outside the United States is 150 days3 as opposed to the normal 90 days. However, this.does. not play a role in the present case because Petitioneri's petition was filed 342 days after the mailing of the notice of deficiency. The only remaining question is whether Respondent issued the notice of deficiency to the last known address of the Petitioner. The Court gave the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence showing that a change of address form had been submitted to the Respondent, and no such information was provided. So we have to presume that the Bay St. Louis address was Petitioner's last known address, because Petitioner provided no clear and concise notificat;ion of an address change. Respondent is entitled to rely upon the last known address that was reasonably determined by 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 Respondent. Follum V. Commissioner, 128 F. 3d., 118, 119, Second Circuit, 1999. Given the record made relative to the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and Petitioner's failure to establish that the change of address was submitted to Respondent, we're left with no recourse but to grant Respondent's motion to dismiss the present case for lack of jurisdiction. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:22 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888