TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Samuel D. & Joyce E. Moore
Docket Number: 29429-11SL
Judge: Laro
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/08/2013
Pages: 8

CLC UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 SAMUEL D. & JOYCE E. MOORE, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 29429-11SL. ) ) ) ) ) OR 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 petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge David Laro, at Phoenix, Arizona, on December 10, 2012, containing his Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion, an Order and Decision granting respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction will be entered in this case. (Signed) David Laro Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 8, 2013 SERVED Feb 12 2013 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 Bench Opinion by Senior Judge David Laro December 10, 2012 Samuel D. & Joyce E. Moore v. Commissioner Docket No. 29429-llSL THE COURT: The Court has decided to render 6 Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case, and 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 the following are the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459 (b) and Rule 152. This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463. Pursuant to the provisions of section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, and Rule references are to 17 the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 Petitioners refers to Samuel D. Moore and Joyce E. 19 Moore. IRS refers to the Internal Revenue Service, 20 and Appeals refers to the IRS Office of Appeals. 21 Petitioners resided in Arizona when they filed the 22 petition. 23 Presently before the Court is respondent's 24 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (motion) 25 filed October 18, 2012. We initially ordered 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 petitioners to file a response to the motion by November 1, 2012. By order dated November 8, 2012, we granted petitioners' motion to extend time to file a response in that we directed petitioners to file their response by November 23, 2012. We later granted another extension to allow petitioners to file their response by November 30, 2012. 8 Petitioners filed a timely response with a 9 declaration. Pursuant to the Court's order dated 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 November 30,2012, the parties each filed a supplemental brief addressing the applicability of Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1992) to respondent's motion. Because we are able to act on respondent's motion based on undisputed facts in the record, we conclude a hearing is not necessary. We will grant respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and 1ssue an Order and Decision accordingly. Background Respondent sent a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action (s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (Notice of Determination) dated November 21, 2011, to petitioners at their last known address; the tax year allegedly at issue is 1999. In response, petitioners filed a petition with this 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 Court for review. The following facts are undisputed: (1) petitioners deposited the petition 3 with FedEx for "FedEx Standard Overnight" delivery to 4 the Court; (2) the FedEx envelope in which the 5 petition was mailed bears a FedEx Express US Airbill 6 7 8 9 prepared by petitioners and dated December 20, 2011; (3) the same envelope also bears an electronically- generated service label akin to a postmark that shows December 22, 2011, as the ship date; and (4) the 10 petition arrived at the Court on December 23, 2011. 11 12 Petitioners state in their declaration that they deposited the FedEx envelope containing the 13 petition with FedEx on December 20, 2011. We have no 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 reason to question the veracity of that statement and accept it as true for the purpose of deciding respondent's motion. Discussion Under section 6330(d) (1), taxpayers may seek judicial review of Appeals' determination regarding a proposed collection action if they filed 21 a petition with the Court for review within 30 days .22 of the mailing of Appeals's determination. The Court 23 24 25 has no jurisdiction to review a petition if it is filed outside the prescribed period. Here, the last day for petitioners to file a timely petition is 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 December 21, 2011. Thus, the critical question is whether the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) deems the mailing date, December 20, 2011, or the delivery date, December 23, 2011, as the petition's filing date. In answering this question, we stress that this Court 1s a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may not extend our jurisdiction beyond the statutory confines on equitable grounds. See Shipley v. Commissioner, 572 F.2d 212,214 (9th Cir. 1977). Section 7502(a) treats timely mailing as timely filing if certain conditions are met. One of the conditions is that the cover containing the document to be filed has a United States postmark dated on or before the prescribed date for filing. The same rule applies to documents mailed using designated private delivery services (PDSs). Sec. 7502(f) (1). Under authority granted in section 7502(f) (2), the Commissioner has designated FedEx Standard Overnight delivery as a PDS for purposes of section 7502. Notice 2004-83, 2004-2 C.B. 1030. In addition, Notice 97-26, 1997-1 C.B. 413 provides special rules, similar to the regulations promulgated under section 7502(b), to determine the filing date if there is a discrepancy between the ship date shown on an airbill prepared by a taxpayer and the date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 shown on a label generated and applied by a FedEx employee. In that instant, the date shown on the label that the FedEx employee generated and applied is deemed the postmark date for purposes of section 7502, regardless of the date shown on the taxpayer- prepared airbill. Here, the envelope in which the petition was mailed has a label generated and applied by a FedEx employee, showing December 22, 2011, as the ship date. The st-attre and the regulations conclusively treat this date as the postmark date, and "petitioner[s] cannot go behind that fact." See Austin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-11, 93 T.C.M. (CCH) 684, 686 (2007). Because the deemed postmark is dated after the prescribed date for filing the 16 petition under section 6330(d) (1), we lack 17 18 19 jurisdiction to review Appeals' determination regarding the proposed collection action. Anderson is inapposite. In Anderson, the 20 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held it was 21 22 23 24 25 proper for the trial court to receive extrinsic evidence to show timely mailing in the absence of a postmark when the IRS never received the document at issue. The Ninth Circuit also found the IRS failed to rebut the common-law presumption that "a properly 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company and timely mailed document is deemed to have been timely received." Anderson, 966 F.2d at 489. But 8 here the Court received the petition and the FedEx envelope in which petitioners mailed the petition has a clear "postmark." Thus, the Court must adhere to section 7502 (a) and cannot allow petitioners to use extrinsic evidence to contradict or vary an official, legible FedEx "postmark." See .Commissioner, 572 F.2d at 214. Similarly, respondent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 has successfully rebutted the common- law presumption 'll here because the record clearly shows the petition 12 was in fact received late. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 In reaching our conclusion today, the Court is fully cognizant of the equitable arguments petitioners have raised in their briefs. we a1so note that the result would have been the same under similar facts had petitioners sent the petition using U.S. Postal Service. As we stated earlier in the opinion, the Court has no power to extend 20 jurisdiction on equitable grounds, especially when I 21 22 23 24 the carefully crafted statutory scheme has devised a clear mechanism on which taxpayers may rely to obtain a timely filing date. As the regulations point out, taxpayers who rely on section 7502 (·a) do so at their 25 peril and assume the risk that the postmark may or 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 may not bear a date on or before the prescribed date for filing or payment; however, taxpayers may avoid the risk by using U.S. registered mail or certified 4 mail 1n accordance with section 7502(c) and the 9 regulations promulgated under that section. See 301.7502-1(c) (1) and (2). Based on the foregoing, the Court shall grant respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and will 1ssue an Order and Decision granting respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com