TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Ray Morris Trent, Jr.
Docket Number: 8631-09S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/18/2010
Pages: 9

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 RAY MORRIS TRENT, JR . , Petitione r V . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent Docket No . 8631-09S . 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 petitioner 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 Detroit, Michigan, on March 3, 2010, 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 o f Jurisd iction will\be entered . (Signed) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C ., March 18, 2010 SEFRVED MAR 2 2 2010 2 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen 2 March 3, 201 0 3 Trent Jr . v . Commissioner Docket No . 8631-09S 4 I . 5 THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER ORAL FINDINGS OF 6 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE, AND THE FOLLOWIN G 7 REPRESENTS THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AN D 8 OPINION . THE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL 9 NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE . 10 II . 11 This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Case 12 pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of th e 13 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 14 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 15 Procedure . 16 III . 17 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 18 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 19 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended , and Rule 152 of the 20 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 21 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, and unles s 22 indicated otherwise, all section numbers refer to the 23 Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rul e 24 numbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 25 Procedure . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 Iv . 2 A . Gary Begun appeared on behalf of respondent . 3 There was no appearance by or on behalf of Ray Morris 4 Trent, Jr . ( hereinafter , petitioner) . 5 V . 6 By Notice dated and served on September 23, 2009, 7 this case was calendared for trial at the Court' s 8 trial session commencing on March 1, 2010, in Detroit, 9 Michigan . However, on January 14, 2010, respondent 10 filed a Motion To Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction, a 11 copy of which was served by respondent on petitioner 12 by mail on January 13, 2010 . In his motion , 13 respondent contends that this case should be dismissed 14 . on the ground that the petition was not filed within 15 the time prescribed by section 6213 ( a) or section 16 7502 . 17 By Order dated and served January 20 , 2010, the 18 Court directed petitioner to file an objection o r 19 other response to respondent ' s motion on or before 20 February 17, 2010 . In that same Order, the Cour t 21 calendared respondent ' s motion for hearing in Detroit, 22 Michigan-on Tuesday, March 2, 2010 . 23 Petitioner did not file an objection or othe r 24 response to respondent ' s motion as directed by the 25 Court in its January 20, 2010 Order . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 Pursuant to notice, this case was called for 2 hearing on March 2 , 2010, in Detroit , Michigan . 3 Counsel for respondent appeared and argued in support 4 of his motion . In contrast , there was no appearance 5 by or on behalf of petitioner . 6 VI . 7 Because this Court may only hear and decide a 8 case on the merits if the Court has jurisdiction, the 9 threshold issue for decision is necessarily whether 10 Ray Morris Trent, Jr . (petitioner ) filed his petition 11 for redetermination of deficiency within the 90-day 12 period prescribed by sections 6213 ( a) and 7502 . 13 VII . 14 The facts necessary to a resolution of the 15 jurisdictional issue are as follows : 16 On December 23, 2008, respondent mailed duplicate 17 original notices of deficiency to petitioner . In the 18 notices , respondent determined deficiencies i n 19 petitioner ' s Federal income taxes for 2004 and 2005 in 20 the amounts of $15,836 and $ 2,524, respectively, and 21 accuracy - related penalties under section 6662 in the 22 amounts of $3,167 .20 and $504 .80, respectively . 23 The duplicate notices were sent to petitioner by 24 certified mail addressed to him at two differen t 25 street addresses in Grand Blanc, Michigan 48439 : The Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 first at 23006 Wilson Street, and the second at 5470 2 Irish Road . (We shall hereinafter refer to thes e 3 addresses as the Wilson Street address and the Iris h 4 Road address, respectively .) The notice of deficiency 5 addressed to petitioner at the Wilson Street addres s 6 was delivered on December 26, 2008 . 7 On April 9, 2009, petitioner filed a petition 8 with this Court seeking a redetermination of the 9 deficiencies for 2004 and 2005 as determined by 10 respondent in the December 23, 2008 duplicate original 11 notices of deficiency . The petition arrived at the 12 Court by regular first-class mail in an envelop e 13 bearing a United States Postal Service postmark date 14 of April 1, 2009 . 15 In the petition, petitioner listed his address as 16 the Wilson Street address . The Wilson Street address 17 also appeared as the sender's address on the envelope 18 in which the petition arrived at the Court . 19 As indicated, respondent filed a Motion T o 20 Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction on January 14, 2010 . 21 In the motion, respondent contends that dismissal for 22 lack of jurisdiction is required because petitioner 23 failed to file a timely petition . 2 4 25 VIII . This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance of a 2 valid notice of deficiency and a timely-file d 3 petition . Monge v . Commissioner , 93 T .C . 22, 2 7 4 (1989) ; Normac, Inc . v . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 142, 147 5 (1988) ; Rule 13(a), (c) . Section 6212(a) expressl y 6 authorizes respondent, after determining a deficiency, 7 to send a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer b y 8 certified or registered mail . It is sufficient fo r 9 jurisdictional purposes if respondent mails the notice 10 of deficiency to the taxpayer at the taxpayer' s "last 11 known address" . Sec . 6212(b) ; Frieling v . 12 Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 52 (1983) . Indeed, if the 13 notice is mailed to the taxpayer at the taxpayer's 14 last known address, actual receipt of the notice by 15 the taxpayer is immaterial . See King v . Commissioner , 16 857 F .2d 676, 679 (9th Cir . 1988), affg . 88 T .C . 1042 17 (1987) ; Yusko v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 806, 81 0 18 (1987) ; Frieling v . Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 5 2 19 (1983) . The taxpayer, in turn, has 90 days, or 150 20 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside 21 the United States, from the date the notice o f 22 deficiency is mailed to file a petition in this Court 23 for a redetermination of the contested deficiency . 24 Sec . 6213(a) . By virtue of section 7502, a petition 25 that is timely mailed is deemed to be timely filed . Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 It is clear in the present case that respondent 2 mailed duplicate original notices of deficiency t o 3 petitioner on December 23, 2008 . See Magazine v . 4 Commissioner , 89 T .C . 321, 327 n .8 (1987), holding 5 that Postal Service Form 3877, or its equivalent , 6 represents direct evidence of the date of mailing of 7 the notice of deficiency . Therefore, the 90-da y 8 period within which petitioner was required to file 9 his petition with the Court expired on Monday, March 10 23, 2009 . However, petitioner did not file a petition 11 for redetermination with this Court until April 9 , 12 2009, a date after the expiration of the critica l 13 90-day period . Moreover, the petition arrived at the 14 Court in an envelope bearing a U .S . Postal Servic e 15 postmark date of April 1, 2009, once again a date 16 after the expiration of the critical 90-day period . 17 Under these circumstances, respondent contends that 18 the petition was not timely filed and that the Court 19 lacks jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiencies for 20 the taxable years in issue . 21 IX . 22 The defense most commonly asserted by taxpayers 23 in cases such as the instant one is that a particular 24 notice of deficiency was not mailed to the taxpayer at 25 the taxpayer's last known address and is therefor e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 invalid . However, given the fact that respondent 2 mailed one of the duplicate original notices o f 3 deficiency to the Wilson Street address, which notice 4 was delivered shortly after it was mailed, and given 5 the additional fact that petitioner listed the Wilson 6 Street address as his current address in his petition, 7 we shall not belabor the matter further but rathe r 8 proceed on the basis that respondent issued a valid 9 notice of deficiency . 10 X . 11 In view of the foregoing, we hold that th e 12 petition in this case was not timely filed pursuant to 13 either section 6213(a) or section 7502 . Accordingly, 14 we shall grant respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Lack 15 Of Jurisdiction, filed January 14, 2010, and we shall 16 dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on th e 17 ground that the petition was not timely filed . 18 XI . 19 Finally, a postscript . 20 Although petitioner cannot pursue a case in this 21 Court, petitioner is not without a judicial remedy . 22 Thus, petitioner may pay the determined liabilities, 23 file a claim for refund with the Internal Revenu e 24 Service, and, if the claim is denied, sue for a refund 25 in the appropriate Federal district court or the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 9 1 United States Court of Federal Claims . See McCormick 2 v . Commissioner , 55 T .C . 138, 142 n .5 (1970) . 3 XII . 4 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT 5 AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . 6 (Whereupon, at 1 :45 p .m ., the bench opinion 7 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888