TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Denise Dorsey
Docket Number: 8829-08S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/23/2009
Pages: 4

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D .C . 2021 7 DENISE DORSEY, Petitioner, v . ) Docket No . 8829-08S 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 petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo at Atlanta, Georgia , on February 26, 2009, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order will be entered granting respondent's motion dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction . (Signed) Lewis R . Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . March 23, 2009 SERVED MAR 2 6 2009 2 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo 2 February 26, 200 9 3 Dorsey v . Commissioner Docket Number 8829-08S 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, an d 6 the following represents the Court's oral findings of 7 fact and opinion . 8 This proceeding for the redetermination of a 9 deficiency is a Small Tax Case conducted pursuant to 10 the provisions of Section 7463 of the Internal Revenue 11 Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of 12 the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 13 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 14 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Internal 15 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 16 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . Subsequent 17 section references made in this bench opinion are to 18 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, i n 19 effect for the relevant period . Rule references are 20 to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 21 Denise Dorsey appeared pro se . Jennifer K . 22 Martwick appeared on behalf of Respondent . 23 This case is before the Court on 24 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack o f 25 Jurisdiction, filed October 16, 2008 . Respondent's Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 3 1 motion is based upon the ground that the petition was 2 not filed within the period prescribed by Sectio n 3 6213(a) . A hearing was conducted on Respondent' s 4 motion on February 23, 2009, in Atlanta, Georgia . The 5 parties appeared and were heard . 6 The underlying facts relevant to a 7 disposition of Respondent's motion are not in dispute 8 and are easily summarized . In a notice of deficiency 9 dated and sent by certified mail to Petitioner o n 10 August 7, 2006, Respondent determined a $46,00 0 11 deficiency in her 2005 Federal income tax . The notice 12 of deficiency was properly sent to Petitioner, and she 13 does not suggest otherwise . The petition, which was 14 sent to the Court by certified mail on April 9, 2008, 15 was .received and filed on April 14, 2008, which date 16 is well beyond the date that the petition was required 17 to have filed . See Section 6213(a) . 18 This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a 19 deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance of a 20 valid notice of deficiency and a timely-filed 21 petition . Monge v . Commissioner , 93 T .C . 22, 2 7 22 (1989) ; Normac, Inc . v . Commissioner , 90 T .C . 142, 147 23 (1988) ; Rule 13(a), (c) . In this case the petitio n 24 filed in response to the above-referenced notice of 25 deficiency was due on or before November 6, 2006, but Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 k- 4 1 mailed and filed long after that date . We understand 2 that Petitioner commenced a bankruptcy proceedin g 3 during 2007, but under the circumstances, that 4 proceeding had no effect on the due date of the 5 petition . 6 That being so, it follows that the petition 7 was not filed within the period prescribed by Section 8 6213(a), and Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack 9 of jurisdiction on that ground must be granted . 10 To reflect the foregoing, an appropriat e 11 order granting Respondent's motion and dismissing this 12 case for lack of jurisdiction upon the ground that the 13 petition was not filed within the period prescribed by 14 Section 6231(a) will be entered . 15 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 16 fact and opinion in this case . 17 (Whereupon, at 9 :50 a .m ., the bench opinion 18 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 19 20 21 22 23 / / 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888