TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Sylvan Odobulu
Docket Number: 24996-15S
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/11/2016
Pages: 4

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 PA SYLVANODOBULU, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 24996-15S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ORDER 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 Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Houston, Texas, 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 appropriate Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction will be entered. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. October 11, 2016 SERVED Oct 12 2016 Capital Reporting Company Bench Opinion by S.T. Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo 3 September 15, 2016 Sylvan Odobulu v. Commissioner Docket No. 24996-15S 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 (bench opinion). Section references made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period, and rule references are to the Tax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench 13 14 15 opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. Upon election made in the petition by 16 Petitioner, this case is subject to provisions of 17 18 19 20 21 22 section 7463 and Rules 170 through 175. The order to be entered in this case shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. This case is now before the Court on Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed August 26, 2016. Respondent's 23 motion is based upon the ground that the petition was 24 25 not filed within the period prescribed by section 6213(a). Petitioner's objection to Respondent's 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 motion is embodied in his response filed September 9, 2016. 2 3 By order dated August 29, 2016, 4 Respondent's motion was set for hearing Houston, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Texas, on September 12, 2016. The hearing was conducted as scheduled. Christina D. White and Gordon P. Sanz appeared on behalf of Respondent and argued in support of the motion. Petitioner appeared on his own behalf and opposed it. The petition, filed October 1, 2015, places in dispute Petitioner's 2012 federal income tax liability. Respondent's records show that on February 13, 2014, a notice of deficiency with respect to 2011 and 2012 was issued and mailed by certified mail to Petitioner at 7406 Furman Way, Sugar Land, Texas 77479-4435 (notice). Petitioner does not suggest that 19 Respondent's records are in any way defective, nor 20 21 22 does Petitioner claim that the above-referenced address was not his "last-known address" -- see section 6212(b)(1) -- as of the date the notice was 23 mailed. 24 25 Instead, at the hearing, Petitioner explained that he waited as long as he did to 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 petition the Court in response to the notice because 2 3 4 5 he expected that the matter would be resolved administratively. Apparently that did not happen, and, as we have noted in countless opinions, for good reason for otherwise, the period within which a 6 petition must be filed in response to a notice of 7 8 9 10 deficiency cannot be extended by the Court. Rule 25(c). See Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). In proceedings such as this one, the 11 Court's jurisdiction over a year placed in dispute in 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a petition depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency for that year and a petition timely filed in response to that notice of deficiency. Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); Rule 13(a), (c). Neither Petitioner nor anything else in the record suggests that the notice is not valid. That being so, because the petition was not filed within the applicable period of time (here, 90 days) after the notice was issued, the Court is without jurisdiction in this matter. It follows that Respondent's motion will be granted, and an appropriate order will be entered to that end. 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com