TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Andrew F. & Whitney M. Meredith
Docket Number: 1312-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/19/2008
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 2021 7 4 ANDREW F . AND WHITNEY M . MEREDITH, Petitioner s v . Docket No . 1312-08S . 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 herewith to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the hearing of the above case before Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at Washington, D .C . on June 11, 2008, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the hearing . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction will be entered . (Signed ) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . June 19, 2008 8EH'VU JUN 2 4 200 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen 2 June 11, 200 8 3 Meredith v . Commissioner Docket No . 1312-08 S 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render ora l 5 findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following 6 represents the Court' s oral findings of fact and opinion . 7 The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied 8 upon as precedent in any other case . 9 This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Cas e 10 pursuant to the provisions of Section 7463 of the Internal 11 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended , and Rules 170 through 175 12 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 13 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 14 authority granted by Section 7459 ( b) of the Internal Revenue 15 Code of 1986, as amended , and Rule 152 of the Tax Cour t 16 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 17 Hereinafter in this bench opinion , and unless 18 otherwise indicated , all section numbers refer to the 19 Internal Revenue Code, as amended , and all Rule numbers 20 refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 21 Eric Benson appeared on behalf of Respondent . 22 There was no appearance by or on behalf of Petitioners . 23 This matter is before the Court on Respondent's 24 Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed April 3, 25 2008, a copy of which was served by Respondent on Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 Petitioners by mail on April 2, 2008 . In his motion , 2 Respondent contends that this case should be dismissed on 3 the ground that the petition was not filed within the time 4 prescribed by Section 6213 (a) or Section 7502 . Also in his 5 motion, Respondent advises that Petitioners object to the 6 granting of the motion . 7 Because this Court may only hear and decide a case on the merits if the Court has jurisdiction, the threshol d 9 issue for decision is necessarily whether Andrew F . Meredith 10 and Whitney M . Meredith (collectively, Petitioners) filed 11 their petition for redetermination of deficiency within the 12 90-day period prescribed by Sections 6213(a) and 7502 . 13 The facts necessary to a resolution of the 14 jurisdictional issue are as follows : 15 On October 9, 2007, Respondent mailed duplicate 16 original notices of deficiency to Petitioner Andrew F . 17 Meredith and to Petitioner Whitney M . Meredith . In the 18 notice, Respondent determined a deficiency in Petitioners' 19 Federal income tax for the taxable year 2005 in the amount 20 of $2,244, together with an addition to tax under Section 21 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file in the amount of $35 . 22 The notice was sent to each Petitioner b y 23 certified mail addressed to each of them at 116 Laurel 24 Drive, Bardstown, Kentucky 40004 . We shall hereinafter 25 refer to this address as the Laurel Drive address . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 for Lack of Jurisdiction on April 3 , 2008 . In the motion, 2 Respondent contends that dismissal for lack of jurisdiction 3 is required because Petitioners failed to file a timely 4 petition . 5 This Court ' s jurisdiction to redetermine a 6 deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance of a valid 7 notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition . Monge v . 8 9 Commissioner , 93 T .C . 22, 27 ( 1989 ) ; Normac , Inc . v . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 142, 147 (1988) ; Rule 13(a), (c) . 10 Section 6212( a) expressly authorizes Respondent, afte r 11 determining a deficiency , to send a notice of deficiency to 12 the taxpayer by certified or registered mail . It i s 13 sufficient , for jurisdictional purposes , if Respondent mails 14 the notice of deficiency to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's 15 'last known address Sec . 6212(b) ; Frieling v . Commissioner , 16 81 T .C . 42 , 52 (1983 ) . Indeed , if the notice is mailed to 17 the taxpayer at the taxpayer ' s last known address , actual 18 receipt of the notice by the taxpayer is immaterial . See 19 King v . Commissioner , 857 F . 2d 676 , 679 (9th Cir . 1988) , 20 affg . 88 T .C . 1042 ( 1987 ) ; Yusko v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 21 806, 810 (1987 ) ; Frieling v . Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 52 22 (1983 ) . The taxpayer , in turn , has 90 days , or 150 days if 23 the notice is addressed to a person outside the Unite d 24 States , from the date the notice of deficiency is mailed to 25 file a petition in this Court for a redetermination of the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 contested deficiency . Sec . 6213(a) . By virtue of Section 2 7502, a petition that is timely mailed is deemed to b e i 3 timely filed . 4 It is clear in the present case that Responden t 5 mailed the notice of deficiency to Petitioners on October 9, 6 2007 . See Magazine v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 321, 327 n . 8 7 (1987), holding that Postal Service Form 3877, or its 8 equivalent, represents direct evidence of the date o f 9 mailing of the notice of deficiency . Therefore, the 90-day 10 period within which Petitioners were required to file their 11 petition with the Court expired on Monday, January 7, 2007 . 12 However, Petitioners did not file a petition fo r 13 redetermination with this Court until January 14, 2008, a 14 date after the expiration of the critical 90-day period . 15 Moreover, the petition arrived at the Court in an envelope 16 bearing a U .S . Postal Service postmark date of January 8, 17 2008, once again, a date after the expiration of the 18 critical 90-day period, albeit but by one day . Under these 19 circumstances, Respondent contends that the petition was not 20 timely filed and that the Court lacks jurisdiction t o 21 redetermine Petitioners' liability for the deficiency and 22 addition to tax for the taxable year in issue . 23 The defense most commonly asserted by taxpayers in 24 cases such as the present one is that a particular notice of 25 deficiency was not mailed to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 last known address and is therefore invalid . However, this 2 defense has not been raised in the present case, and th e 3 record suggests that any such defense would be unavailin g 4 given the fact that Petitioners had the same address at the 5 time when the notice of deficiency was mailed and when the 6 petition was filed . But more to the point, Petitioner s 7 admit in their Response, filed April 30, 2008, t o 8 Respondent's motion that "Petitioners received the notice of 9 deficiency dated October 9, 2007, at their last known 10 address, and this address was correct ." Thus, nothing 11 further needs to be said about this particular matter . 12 In their aforementioned Response, Petitioners also 13 state that "the original petition was hand-delivered to the 14 Bardstown, Kentucky post office, that bears the postal code 15 of 40004, on January 7, 2008, before closing time of said 16 post office ." We have no reason not to accept Petitioners' 17 statement at face value . However, the law is clear that , 18 for purposes of the timely mailing/timely filing rule o f 19 Section 7502, extrinsic evidence, i .e ., evidence other than 20 the United States Postal Service postmark appearing on the 21 envelope in which a petition is mailed, is legall y 22 irrelevant . Hendley v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2000-348, 23 and cases cited therein ; see Austin v . Commissioner , T .C . 24 Memo . 2007-11 . The only exception to this rule contemplates 25 an envelope sent by certified or registered mail, in which Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 9 1 case the postmark placed on the certified or registered mail 2 receipt would control . Sec . 7502( c) ; sec . 301n7502-1(c)(2), 3 Proced . & Admin . Regs . In other words, a taxpayer who mails 4 a petition to the Court by regular, first-class mail assumes 5 the risk that the envelope might not be postmarked on th e 6 date that it is deposited into the mail . Sec . 301 .7502- 7 1 (c) (1) (iii) (A) , Proced & Admin . Regs . "[T]he risk that the 8 document * * * will not be postmarked on the day that it is 9 deposited in the mail may be eliminated by the use o f 10 registered or certified mail ." Sec . 3017502-1(c)(2) , R 11 Proced . & Admin . Regs . 12 In view of the foregoing, we are constrained to 13 hold that the petition in this case was not timely filed 14 pursuant to either Section 6213(a) or Section 7502 . 15 Accordingly, we shall grant Respondent's Motion To Dismiss 16 for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed April 3, 2008, and we shall 17 dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground 18 that the petition was not timely filed . 19 Finally, a postscript . 20 Although Petitioners cannot pursue a case in this 21 Court, Petitioners are not without a judicial remedy . Thus, 22 Petitioners may pay the determined liability, file a claim 23 for refund with the Internal Revenue Service, and, if th e 24 claim is denied, sue for a refund in the appropriate Federal 25 District Court or the United States Court of Federal Claims . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 10 1 See McCormick v . Commissioner , 55 T .C . 138, 142 n .5 (1970) . 2 It is also possible that Respondent might, perhaps, agree to 3 audit reconsideration ; however, that is a matter withi n 4 Respondent's sole discretion, which is not reviewable by 5 this Court . 6 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact 7 and opinion in this case . 8 (Whereupon, at 11 : 18 a .m ., the bench opinion in 9 the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) /1 10 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 2.0 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888