TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Alan Wininger
Docket Number: 14151-07
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/18/2008
Pages: 16

c.A,v, ami-k W UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 ALAN WININGER, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent O R D E R Docket No . 14151-07 . ADM . RECORDED CA LT . S 'TAA.T . Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice nd S .T . =GE Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit he 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 New York, New York (Westbury) on June 3, 2008, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the hearing . ew ' F ~ 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 18, 2008 SER Eu JUN 2 0 2008 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen Jr . 2 June 3, 200 8 3 Wininger v . Commissioner Docket No . 14151-07 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render oral 5 Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case, and the 6 following represents the Court's Oral Findings of Fac t 7 and Opinion . The oral findings of fact and opinion shall 8 not be relied upon as precedent in any other case . 9 This proceeding was heard as a regular cas e 10 pursuant to the provisions of Section 7443A(b)(4) of the 0 11 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended , and Rules 18f, 12 181, and 182 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 13 Procedure . 14 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 15 authority granted by Section 7459 (b) of the Interna l 16 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended , and Rule 152 of the Tax 17 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 18 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, and unless 19 otherwise indicated , all section numbers refer to the 20 Internal Revenue Code , as amended , and all rule numbers 21 refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 22 Marie E . Small appeared on behalf of the 23 Respondent . There was no appearance by or on behalf of 24 Petitioner . 25 This case is before the Court on Respondent's Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 4 1 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, filed March 2 11, 2008, and supplemented May 12, 2008 . The Petitioner 3 resided in Brooklyn, New York, at the time that th e 4 petition was filed with the Court . 5 The facts relevant to the disposition of 6 Respondent's motion are as follows : 7 Petitioner failed to file Federal income ta x 8 returns for 2000, 2001, and 2002 . By separate notices, 9 each dated November 14, 2005, the Respondent determined 10 deficiencies in the Petitioner' s Federal income taxes for 11 2000, 2001, and 2002, together with additions to tax 12 under Section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file, under 13 Section 6651(a)(2) for failure to pay tax, and under 14 Section 6654(a) for failure to pay estimated tax for each 15 of those years . Each of the notices stated as follows : 16 "Last Date to Petition Tax Court : February 14, 2006 . " 17 Respondent sent the notices of deficiency to 18 Petitioner by certified mail addressed to him at 1375 19 Coney Island Avenue, PBM 149, Brooklyn, New York 11230 . 20 We shall hereinafter refer to this address as th e 21 Brooklyn address . 22 Petitioner did not file a petition fo r 23 redetermination with this Court . See Section 6213(a) . 24 Accordingly, Respondent assessed the deficiencies in tax 25 and additions to tax, together with statutory interest , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 see Section 6213(c), and sent Petitioner statutory 2 notices of balance due, i .e . notice and demand for 3 payment, see Section 6303(a) . Petitioner did not pay the 4 amounts owing . 5 On August 21, 2006, Respondent sent Petitioner a 6 Final Notice/Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of your 7 Right to a Hearing (final notice) . See Section 6330(a) . 8 The final notice reflected Petitioner's outstandin g 9 liabilities for 2000, 2001, and 2002 . 10 Respondent sent the final notice to Petitioner by 11 certified mail addressed to him at the Brooklyn address . 12 Petitioner received the final notice . The 30th day after 13 the mailing of the final notice was Wednesday, September 14 20, 2006 . 15 On September 25, 2006, the Respondent received 16 from Petitioner a Form 12153, Request for a Collectio n 17 Due Process Hearing, in response of the final notice . In 18 the Form 12153, Petitioner listed his address as the 19 Brooklyn address, and he identified 2000, 2001, and 2002 20 as the taxable years in issue . 21 Opposite his signature on the Form 12153 , 22 Petitioner placed the date September 21, 2006, which date 23 was a Thursday . Petitioner mailed the form to Respondent 24 *using the United States Postal Service . 25 The form arrived in an envelope bearing only a 39- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 cent stamp, thus indicating that the envelope had bee n 2 sent by regular first-class mail . The postmark appearing 3 on the envelope in which the form was mailed is September 4 22, 2006, which date was a Friday . 5 Respondent's Office of Appeals determined that 6 Petitioner failed to timely file the Form 12153, see 7 Section 6330, and offered him a so-called equivalen t 8 hearing in lieu of the so-called collection due process 9 (CDP) hearing, see Section 301 .6330-1(i), Proced . and 10 Admin . Regs . 11 Ultimately, on May 22, 2007, Respondent's Office 12 of Appeals sent Petitioner a Decision Letter Concerning 13 Equivalent Hearing Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 of the 14 Internal Revenue Code (decision letter) . 15 The decision letter, which was mailed t o 16 Petitioner at the Brooklyn address, stated, in part, as 17 follows : 18 "The case is being returned to ACS [Automated 19 Collection System] in Compliance to continue with their 20 collection determination . In your Request for a CD P 21 Hearing [Form 12153] you raised issues of moral , 22 religious, political, constitutional, conscientious, or 23 other frivolous objections to collection of you r 24 liabilities . These objections are without merit and have 25 been repeatedly rejected by the courts . I gave you an Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 opportunity to present non-frivolous arguments by letter . 2 You declined the opportunity . " 3 On June 19 , 2007, Petitioner filed with this Court 4 an imperfect petition , using a form letter typically used 5 by tax protestors . In the imperfect petition , petitioner 6 listed his address as the Brooklyn address . 7 The imperfect petition arrived at the Court by 8 certified mail in an envelope bearing an irradiate d 9 Postal Service postmark dated that is illegible . The 10 return address on the envelope is the Brooklyn address . 11 Petitioner did not attach to the imperfec t 12 petition any exhibit . He did, however , reference an IRS 13 "Decision" in respect of which he was appealing to this 14 Court . 15 Thereafter, on February 11, 2008, Petitioner filed 16 with this Court an amended petition for lien or lev y 17 action ( collection action ) . See Section 6330 ( d) ; Rules 18 330-334 . In the amended petition, Petitioner listed his 19 address as the Brooklyn address . 20 Petitioner attached to the amended petition, as an 21 exhibit, a copy of the May 22, 2007 decision letter . The 22 decision letter was issued following a so-calle d 23 equivalent hearing in respect of Petitioner ' s liabilities 24 for 2000 , 2001, and 2002 . 25 As indicated , Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 for Lack of Jurisdiction on March 11, 2008 . In th e 2 motion, Respondent moves that this case be dismissed for 3 lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that "no notice o f 4 determination under I .R .C . Section 6320 or Section 6330 5 was sent to Petitioner for tax years 2000, 2001, an d 6 2002, nor has Respondent made any other determination 7 with respect to Petitioner's 2000, 2001, and 2002 tax 8 years that would confer jurisdiction on this Court . " 9 On April 14, 2008, Petitioner filed an Objection 10 to Respondent's Motion . Thereafter, on May 12, 2008 , 11 Petitioner filed a supplement to his objection . Also on 12 that same date, Respondent filed a supplement to hi s 13 motion . 14 Pursuant to notice, Respondent's motion was called 15 for hearing on June 2, 2008, in New York, New York . 16 Counsel for Respondent appeared and was heard . In 17 contrast, there was no appearance by or on behalf o f 18 Petitioner, nor did petitioner file any written statement 19 pursuant to Rule 50(c) in lieu of appearance . 20 The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction . 21 See Section 7442 . Accordingly, we may exercis e 22 jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by 23 statute . Brendan v . Commissioner , 66 T .C . 61, 66 (1976) . 24 In addition, jurisdiction must be prove n 25 affirmatively, and a party invoking our jurisdiction Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 9 1 bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdictio n 2 over the party's case . See Fehrs v . Commissioner , 6 5 3 T .C . 346, 348 (1975) ; Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc . 4 5 v . Commissioner , 35 T .C . 177, 180 (1960) ; National Comm . to Secure Justice, Etc . v . Commissioner , 27 T .C . 837, 839 6 (1957) . 7 In order to meet this burden, the party must 8 establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our 9 jurisdiction . See Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc . v . 10 11 12 Commissioner , supra at 180 ; Consolidated Co . v . Commissioner , 15 B .T .A . 645, 651 (1929) . Lien or Levy Action . Petitioner has characterized 13 this action as a lien or levy action (collection action), 14 and he has identified the document in respect of which he 15 has appealed as the May 22, 2007, decision letter issued 16 by Respondent's Appeals Office regarding Petitioner' s 17 outstanding liabilities for 2000, 2001, and 2002 . 18 In a collection action, i .e ., a lien or lev y 19 action, this Court's jurisdiction under Sections 6320 and 20 6330 depends, in part, on the issuance of a notice o f 21 determination by Respondent's Office of Appeals after the 22 taxpayer has requested a so-called collection due process 23 (CDP) hearing following the issuance by Respondent' s 24 collection division of either a final notice of intent to 25 levy, see Sec . 6330(a), or a notice of filing of a Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 Federal tax lien , see Sec . 6320 ( a) ' . See Sarrell v . Commissioner , 117 T . C . 122, 125 ( 2001) ; Moorhous v . Commissioner , 116 T . C . 263 , 269 (2001 ) ; Offiler v . Commissioner , 114 T . C . 492 , 498(2000 ) ; see also Rul e 10 6 As stated, the only exhibit attached to the 7 amended petition in this case is the May 22, 200 7 8 decision letter . This document is not , however, a notice 9 of determination within the meaning of Section.6330 . 10 Indeed, the record demonstrates that Respondent's 11 Office of Appealo has not made any determination 12 regarding either a proposed levy or a notice of Federal 13 tax lien and has not sera Petitioner any notice of 14 determination within the meaning of Section 6330'for 2000 15 2001, or 2002 . 16 In contrast, Respondent's Office of Appeals did 17 conduct an equivalent hearing and did ultimately issue 18 the decision letter . However, a decision letter is not a 19 notice of determination, and a decision letter, unlike a 20 notice of determination, does not serve to vest this 21 Court with jurisdiction . 22 A request for a so-called collection due process 23 (CDP) hearing, which is typically made on a Form 12153, 24 and is made in respect of either a final notice of intent 25 to levy or a notice of filing of a Federal tax lien, mus t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 (cid:127) 11 1 be filed by the taxpayer within a prescribed period of 2 time . See Sections 6320( a), 6330(a) . 3 If such a request is not filed within th e 4 statutory period, then Respondent's Office of Appeals is 5 neither obliged to offer the taxpayer a CDP hearing nor 6 obliged to issue a notice of determination pursuant t o 7 Section 6320 and/or 6330 . Kennedy v . Commissioner , 116 8 T .C . 255, 258-263 (2001) ; Moorhous v . Commissioner , 116 9 T .C . 263, 267-271 (2001) ; Section 301 .6320-1(i)(1) , 10 Proced . and Admin . Regs ; Section 301 .6330-1(i)(1), 11 Proced . and Admin . Regs . 12 However, as an accommodation, Respondent's Office 13 of Appeals Typically offers the taxpayer a so-calle d 14 equivalent hearing and then issues a decision letter . 15 Id . A decision letter is not a notice of determination, 16 or is a decision letter appealable to this Court . Id . 17 In the present case , the record demonstrates that 18 Petitioner's Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due 19 Process Hearing, was received by Respondent in an 20 envelope tearing a postmark date of Friday, September 22 , '41, 6 4 21 2006 . 22 Unfortunately for Petitioner, the 30th day after 23 the issuance of the final notice on August 21, 2006, was 24 Wednesday, September 20, 2006 . Thus, the Form 12153 was 25 untimely filed, and Respondent's Office of Appeals was Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 12 1 not obliged to, and therefore did not, conduct a CD P 2 hearing, but rather offered only an equivalent hearing . 3, In the Supplement to his Objection, Petitioner 4 alleges that he mailed the Form 12153 to Respondent by 5 certified mail on September 21, 2006 . However, the 6 envelope in which Respondent received the Form 12153 7 bears only a 39-cent stamp, thus indicating that th e 8 envelope had been sent by regular first-class mail and 9 not by certified mail . 10 But even if Petitioner sent the Form 12153 by 11 certified mail, tte form still would have been late 12 because the 30th day after the mailing of the final 13 notice was Wednesday, September 20, 2006 . 14 Petitioner's suggestion that he may, perhaps, have 15 posted the Form 12153 on September 20, 2006, is belied by 16 the fact that Petitioner dated the form September 21 , 17 2006 . In any event, evidence extrinsic to the postmark 18 is irrelevant for purposes of the timely-mailing/timely 19 filing rule of Section 7502 . 20 Petitioner may suggest that the final notice was 21 not mailed to him at his last known address . If true, 22 this matter would be consequential . See Buffano v . 23 Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2007-32 . 24 However, apart from the fact that Petitioner has 25 never even identified what he thinks his last known Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 13 1 address was on August 21, 2006, much less proven that 2 matter , see Yusko v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 806, 80 8 3 (1987), the fact of the matter is that at all relevant 4 times, Petitioner has utilized the Brooklyn address . 5 In short, we are satisfied that the Brookly n 6 address was Petitioner's last known address at he time 7 that the final notice was mailed to, and received by , 8 him . 9 Deficiency Action . The record demonstrates that 10 in separate notices dated November 14, 2005, Respondent 11 determined deficiencies in, and additions to , 12 Petitioner's income taxes from 2000, 2001, and 2002 . In 13 his pleadings, Petitioner appears to challenge those 14 liabilities . 15 Accordingly, we consider whether we might have 16 jurisdiction in the present case to determine the 17 deficiencies and additions to tax pursuant to our 18 deficiency jurisdiction . 19 In an action for the redetermination of a 20 deficiency, the Court's jurisdiction under Sectio n 21 6213(a) depends on the issuance by the Commissioner of a 22 notice of deficiency to the taxpayer and the timel y 23 filing of a petition by the taxpayer . Frieling v . 24 Commissioner , 81 T .C . 42, 46 (1983) ; Rule 13(a) . 25 Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 14 1 Commissioner after determining a deficiency , to send a 2 notice of deficiency to the taxpayer by certified o r 3 registered mail . It is sufficient for jurisdictiona l 4 purposes if Respondent mails the notice of deficiency to 5 the taxpayer at the taxpayer ' s "last known address" . 6 Section 6212(b) ; Frieling v . Commissioner , supra at 52 . 7 If a notice of deficiency is mailed to the 8 taxpayer at the taxpayer ' s last known address , actual 9 receipt of the notice is immaterial . King v . 10 Commissioner , 857 F .2d 676 , 679 (9th Cir . 1988 ), affg . 88 11 T .C . 1042 (1987) ; Yusko v . Commissioner , supra at 810 ; 12 Frieling v . Commissioner , supra , at 52 . 13 The taxpayer, ih turn, has 90 days from the date 14 that the notice of deficiency is mailed to file a 15 petition in this Court for a redetermination of th e 16 deficiency . Section 6213(a) . A petition that is timely 17 mailed is deemed to be timely filed . Section 7502 . 18 It is clear in the present case that Respondent 19 mailed notices of deficiency for 2000, 2001, and 2002 to 20 Petitioner on November 14, 2005 . See Magazine v . 21 Commissioner , 89 T .C . 321, 327 n .8 (1987), holding that 22 Postal Service Form 3877, or its equivalent, represents 23 direct evidence of the date of mailing of the notice of 24 deficiency . 25 Therefore, the 90-day period within whic h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 5 1 Petitioner was required to file his petition with the 2 Court-expired on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 . See Sec . 3 6213(a), last sentence, providing that any petition filed 4 with the Tax Court on or before the last date specifie d 5 for filing such petition by the Commissioner in th e 6 notice of deficiency shall be treated as timely filed ; 7 Sec . 7503, regarding the time for performance of act s 8 where the last day otherwise falls on a Saturday, Sunday, 9 or legal holiday . 10 However, Petitioner did not file an imperfec t 11 petition with this Court until June 19, 2007, a date well 12 after the expiration of the critical 90-day period . The 13 Petition arrived at the Court in an envelope bearing an 14 irradiated Postal Service postmark date that i s 15 illegible . 16 But Petitioner has not even alleged, much less 17 demonstrated, that the mailing date was other than after 18 the expiration of the critical 90-day period . Unde r 19 these circumstances, the imperfect petition was not 20 timely filed and the Court lacks jurisdiction t o 21 redetermine Petitioner's liability for the deficiencies 22 and additions to tax for the taxable years in issue . 23 Petitioner may suggest that the notices of 24 deficiency were not mailed to him at his last known 25 address . If true, this matter would be consequential . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 6 1 See Pietanza v . Commissioner , 92 T .C . 729 (1989), affd . 2 without published opinion 935 F .2d 1282 (3d Cir . 1991) . 3 However, apart from the fact that Petitioner has 4 never even identified what he thinks his last know n 5 address was on November 14, 2005, much less proven that 6 matter, see Yusko v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 806, 80 8 7 (1987), the fact of the matter is that at all relevant 8 times, Petitioner has utilized the Brooklyn address . 9 In short, we are satisfied that the Brooklyn 10 address was Petitioner's last known address at the time 11 that the notices of deficiency were mailed to him . In 12 sum, we hold that the Court lacks jurisdiction in this 13 case . 14 Accordingly, we shall enter an order of Dismissal 15 for Lack of Jurisdiction granting Respondent's Motion to 16 Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 11, 2008, 17 and supplemented May 12, 2008, and dismissing this case, 18 if viewed as a lien or levy action (collection action), 19 on the ground that Respondent's Office of Appeals has not 20 sent Petitioner a notice of determination for any of the 21 years in issue, and, if viewed as an action fo r 22 redetermination, on the ground that the petition was not 23 timely filed . This concludes the Court's oral findings 24 of fact and opinion in this case . 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 (Whereupon , at 11 : 13 a .m ., the bench opinion in 2 the above -entitled matter was concluded . ) 17 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888