TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Jacqueline Thomas-Furqan
Docket Number: 2577-12
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/03/2013
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 JACQUELINE THOMAS-FURQAN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF 1NTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Docket No. 2577-12 Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of this case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa in Baltimore, Maryland on May 22, 2013, containing her 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 appropriate order will be issued granting respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Date: Washington, DC June 3, 2013 SERVED JUN - 4 20ß Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa May 22, 2013 Jacqueline Thomas-Furqan v. Commissioner Docket No. 2577-12 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. THESE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. 13 All section references are to the Internal Revenue 14 Code for 2001, and all Rule references are to the Tax 15 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 16 17 18 19 20 21 Petitioner appeared pro se, and Bradley Plovan appeared on behalf of respondent. This stand-alone innocent spouse case 1s before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Court ordered petitioner to file a response to respondent's motion. 22 Petitioner failed to file a timely response. The 23 24 25 Court also scheduled a hearing on respondent's motion at the trial session in Baltimore, Maryland beginning May 20, 2013. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 As previously indicated, respondent filed a 2 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the 3 ground that petitioner did not file the petition 4 within the time prescribed by section 6015(e) or 5 section 7502. Thus, the issue for decision is 6 whether we have jurisdiction regarding petitioner's 7 8 9 innocent spouse claim. We hold that we do not have jurisdiction. We reviewed the record to determine the 10 relevant facts for us to rule on respondent's motion. 11 Petitioner resided in Fort Washington, Maryland when 12 13 14 15 she sent a request to the IRS' Covington, Kentucky Appeals Office (Covington office) regarding her innocent spouse claim. Respondent issued a Final Appeals 16 Determination to petitioner on October 13, 2011 17 18 19 20 (final determination notice) denying her relief under section 6015. The final determination notice informed petitioner that she had until January 11, 2012, to file a petition with the United States Tax 21 Court. Instead of filing a petition with this Court, 22 23 24 25 however, petitioner sent her request to the Covington office responsible for handling innocent spouse claims. The Covington office received the request from petitioner on January 12, 2012, in an envelope 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 postmarked January 9, 2012. The Covington office forwarded the request to this Court that the Court received on January 26, 2012. We filed the document as the petition and ordered petitioner to file an amended petition with the requisite filing fee. This 6 Court has been liberal in filing documents submitted 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 by taxpayers as petitions. See Eiges v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 61, 63 (1993); Castaldo v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 285, 287 (1974). Petitioner filed an amended petition with the Court on July 23, 2012. In the petition and amended petition, petitioner seeks a review of respondent's final determination notice denying her any relief from joint and several liability on a joint return petitioner filed with her spouse, Wilbert E. Furqan, for 2001. The predicates for our jurisdiction in a stand-alone proceeding under section 6015, as here, is that the taxpayer must have received a final determination notice that he or she was denied relief under section 6015 and he or she timely filed a petition. Sec. 6015(e) (1). Petitioner essentially argues that she timely filed a "petition" with the Covington office because she sent it on January 9, 2012, and the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 Covington office received the "petition" on January 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11, 2012. A petition is timely if it is received by the Court within the 90 days after the final determination notice is mailed. Sec.6015(e) (1) (A) (ii). If the last day of the 90-day period falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia, the last day of the 90- day period is the first business day thereafter. Sec. 301.6213-1(a) (1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. The final determination here was mailed on October 13, 2011. The 90-day period for timely filing a petition 12 with the Court expired on January 11, 2012. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A document, including a Tax Court petition, is considered filed on the date it is mailed, if it is postmarked within the date prescribed. In certain limited circumstances, section 7502 provides that a timely mailed petition will be treated as though it were timely filed. Sec. 7502(a) (1). For this provision to apply, however, the document must be properly addressed to the office with which it is required to be filed. Sec. 7502 (a) (2) (B). Petitioner essentially asserts that she 23 mailed the "petition" timely. The specific issue 24 25 then becomes whether a petition is timely filed where it is mailed in an envelope postmarked within the 90- 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 day period, but improperly addressed to the IRS and forwarded by the IRS to the Tax Court and received by the Tax Court outside the 90-day period required. The answer is no. We have previously held that where a taxpayer mails the petition to a wrong address, the 6 petition was not timely filed. Axe v. Commissioner, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 58 T.C. 256 (1972); Zee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-83. Petitioner also argues that she was hospitalized when respondent sent her the final determination notice. She wants us to avoid the law and afford her leniency. Her theory is that it would be the equitable thing to do, and Congress intended to help taxpayers with innocent spouse claims. 15 Petitioner's generalized reliance on "equity" and 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "policy considerations" cannot overcome a jurisdictional defect. See, e.g. Gormeley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-252. We have no authority to extend the period provided by law for filing a petition with this Court whatever the equities of a particular case may be and regardless of the reason for it not being filed within the required period. The mailing of a request to the IRS is manifestly not filing it with the Tax Court. In fact, the IRS is under no legal obligation to forward 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company I 8 the "petition" to the Court. See Hinman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1978-133. It follows that the petition was not timely filed. An appropriate order will be issued granting respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, and this case i.s dismissed on the ground that the petition was not timely filed. We note, however, that despite our holding here, petitioner may still be able to have her day in court by paying the amount owing for 2001 and bringing a suit for refund in the appropriate Federal court. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 10:05 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 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