TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Fabiola Mondragon De Vergara
Docket Number: 11858-11
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/17/2012
Pages: 11

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 FABIOLA MONDRAGON DE VERGARA Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDE R Docket No. 11858-11 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 Los Angeles, California, 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 October 17, 2012 SERVED CT. 1 8 2012 Capital Reporting Company Fabiola Mondragon De Vergara 09-12-2012 IN THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT In the matter of FABIOLA MONDRAGON DE VERGARA, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 11858-11 ) ) ) Respondent. ) Pages: 1 through 9 Place: Los Angeles, California Date: September 12, 2012 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company - Fabiola Mondragon De Vergara 09-12-2012 IN THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT 1 In the matter of FABIOLA MONDRAGON DE VERGARA, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, . Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 11858-11 ) ) ) ) ) Room 1167 Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and United States Courthouse 255 East Temple Street Los Angeles, California Wednesday September 12, 2012 The above-entitled matter came on for a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 bench opinion, pursuant to notice, at 1:00 p.m. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE: HONORABLE DIANE L. KROUPA Judge A P P E A R A N C E S For the Petitioner: No Appearances For the Respondent: No Appearances (866) 448 - DEPO - www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Fabiola Mondragon De Vergara 09 18-2012 P R O C E E D I N G S (1:00 p.m.) 2 THE CLERK: Recalling from the calendar docket No. 11858-11, Fabiola Mondragon De Vergara. (Whereupon, a bench opinion was rendered in the above-entitled matter.) 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) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Fabiola Mondragon De Vergara 09 18-2012 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa 2 Fabiola Mondragon De Vergara Docekt No..11858-ll 3 September 12, 2012 4 5 6 7 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 8 OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY 9 OTHER CASE. 10 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 11 authority granted by Section 7459(b) and Rule 152. 12 All section references are to the Int±ernal Revenue 13 Code for 2005, the year at issue, and all Rule 14 references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 15 Procedure. 16 This case is before the Court on 17 respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 18 Jurisdiction, filed July 16, 2012. espondent moves 19 to dismiss this case on the ground that petitioner 20 did not file the petition within the time prescribed 21 by Section 6213(a) or Section 5702. The Court set 22 respondent's motion to dismiss for hearing on the 23 Court's September 10, 2012, trial session in Los 24 Angeles, California. Petitioner failed to file a . . 25 response to respondent's motion. (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCoinpany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Compan Fabiola Mondragon De Vergara 09 18-2012 1 2 Petitioner appeared pro se with the help of interpreter Ms. Moyna. Eric Heller appeared.on 3 behalf of respondent. 4 The issue for decision is whether the 5 petitioner timely filed a petition wi h this Court. 6 We hold that she did not, and therefore we shall 7 grant respondent's motion to dismiss. 8 9 FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes or the parties do not 10 dispute the following facts: 11 12 13 Petitioner resided in California at the time she filed the petition in this case. Respondent sent a deficiency notice by 14 certified mail to petitioner at her last known 15 address on December 9, 2010. The United States 16 Postal Service stamped the certified mail list and 17 shows it was delivered to petitioner on December 13, 18 2010 . Respondent determined in the notice that 19 petitioner had a $5,311 deficiency in Federal income 20 tax and that petitioner was liable for a $588.75 late 21 filing addition and a $1,062.20 accuracy-related 22 penalty under Section 6662 for 2005. Petitioner was 23 notified that the last day to file a petition with 24 25 the Court was March 9, 2011. Petitioner failed to file a petition with (866) 448 - DEPO . www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Fabiola Mondragon De Vergara 0 18-2012 5 1 the Court on March 9, 2011. Instead petitioner 2 mailed a petition to this Court on May 13, 2011,. that 3 4 the Court filed on May 19, 2011. Thus, petitioner filed a petition on May 19, 2011, which is 161 days 5 after the deficiency notice was issu d. 6 As previously mentioned, respondent filed a 7 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, and 8 petitioner failed to file a response as directed in 9 the Court ' s orde r . dated July 20, .2012 . Re spondent 10 11 contends that dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is required because petitioner failed to file a timely 12 petition.. Respondent included a copy of petitioner's 13 deficiency notice to verify that the deficiency 14 notice was mailed to petitioner ' s las known addre s s . 15 Petitioner appeared at the hearing on1 the dismissal 16 motion on September 10, 2012. Petitioner essentially 17 explained that she does not have the money to pay the 18 deficiency, additions to tax, and penalties. She 19 uses what little money she has to provide for herself 20 21 22 and her two sons. OPINION We now address whether the petitioner timely 23 filed a petition with this Court. The Tax Court is a 24 court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise 25 our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Fabiola Mondragon De Vergara 0(18-2012 6 pL 1 Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527,529 2 (1985). This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a 3 deficiency depends on issuance of a valid deficiency 4 notice and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); 5 Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22,27 (1989); Normac, 6 7 Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142 (1588). The Commissioner may send a deficiency 8 notice to the taxpayer by certified or registered 9 mail after determining a deficiency. Sec. 6212 (a) . 10 Actual receipt of the notice by the taxpayer is 11 immaterial if the notice is mailed to the taxpayer at 12 the taxpayer's last known address. See King v. 13 Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 679, (9th Cir. 1988), 14 affg. 88 T.C. 1042 (1987); Yusko v. Commissioner, 15 89 T.C. 806,810 (1987). Generally, a taxpayer must 16 file a petition with this Court within 90 days after 17 the deficiency notice is mailed to a taxpayer within 18 the United States. Sec. 6213(a). 19 A petition is timely if it is filed with the 20 Court within 90 days (or 150 days in certain 21 situations) after the deficiency notice is mailed. 22 Sec. 6213(a). A petition that is timely mailed is 23 deemed to be timely filed. Sec. 7502. There is no 24 dispute in this case that respondent mailed the 25 deficiency notice to petitioner on December 9, 2010. (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Fabiola Mondragon De Vergara 09 18 2012 1 Petitioner had until March 9, 2011, to file a 2 petition with this Court. Petitioner did not file 3 4 5 the petition with this Court timely under the 90-day rule. Instead of filing the petition by March 9, 2011, which is the deadline under the 90-day rule, 6 petitioner did not file the petition until May 19, 7 8 9 2011. There is another special rule that applies to determine whether there was a timely filing. A 10 petition may still be deemed timely filed if the date 11 of the U.S. postmark stamped on the envelope in which 12 13 the petition was mailed is within the time prescribed for filing. See Sec. 7502(a). .Here, the envelope 14 containing the petition was dated May 13, 2011, which 15 was 155 days after the mailing of the deficiency 16 notice. Accordingly, the timely mailed, timely filed 17 18 rule does not reply to petitioner. We hold that the petition in this case was 19 not timely filed pursuant to either Section 6213(a) 20 or Section 7502. Accordingly, we shall grant 21 respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 22 Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not 23 timely filed. 24 - An appropriate order will be issued granting 25 respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Fabiola Mondragon De Vergara 09-18-2012 jurisdiction THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matte was concluded.) 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22· 23 24 25 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 - Capital Reporting Compan Fabiola Mondragon De Vergara 09 18-2012 * * * * * CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER AND PROOFREADER 9 CASE NAME: Fabiola Mondragon De Vergära DOCKET NUMBER: 11858-11 We, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 9, inclusive, are the true, accurate, and complete. transcript 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 prepared from the stenographic notes made by Lisa 11 Moskowitz, on September 12, 2012, before the United 12 States Tax Court at its session in Los Angeles, 13 California, in accordance with the applicable 14 provisions of the current verbatim reporting contract 15 of the Court, and have verified the aË:curacy of the 16 transcript by comparing the typewritten transcript 17 against the verbal recording. 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Lisa Moskowitz (Court Reporter) (Date) ____ ________ Tracey Bauguss (Scopist) (Date) (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalRe portingCompany..com 2012