TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Janet K. Mittan
Docket Number: 16963-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/11/2008
Pages: 12

() II,UM"Ue'( UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 JANET K . MITTAN, Petitione r . T . jT 2 CA E v . ) Docket No . 16963-07S .. . 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 hearing of the above case before Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at Denver, Colorado on March 13, 2008, 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 appropriate Order will be issued" (Signed ) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e DATED : Washington, D .C . April 11, 2008 89RVED APR 1 4 2006, 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 2 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . March 13, 200 8 JANET K . MITTAN v . Commissioner Docket No . 16963-07 S I . THE COURT : THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDE R ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE, AND THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS O F FACT AND OPINION . THE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AN D OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN AN Y OTHER CASE . II . This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Case, pursuant to the provisions of section 7463(f)(1 ) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules o f Practice and Procedure . See and compare Rules 32 0 through 325 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice an d Procedure . III . This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Interna l Revenue Code of 1986 , as amended, and Rule 152 of th e Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . Hereinafter in this bench opinion, al l section numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code, a s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 amended, and all Rule numbers refer to the Tax Court 3 2 Rules of Practice and Procedure . 3 IV . 4 Joan E . Steele appeared on behalf o f 5 respondent . There was no appearance by or on behalf 6 of petitioner . 7 V . 8 By Notice dated and served on petitioner by 9 certified mail on October 10, 2007, and subsequentl y 10 re-served on petitioner by regular first-class mail on 11 November 15, 20C7, this case was calendared for trial 12 on March 10, 2008, in Denver, Colorado . However, on 13 February 13, 2008, respondent filed a Motion To 14 Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction And To Strike As To 15 The Taxable Year 2001, a copy of which was served by 16 respondent on petitioner by mail on February 12, 2008 . 17 In his motion, respondent contends that this 18 case, insofar as it relates to the taxable year 2001, 19 should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on th e 20 ground that (1) no final determination as authorized 21 by section 6015(e) to form the basis for a petition to 22 this Court has been sent to petitioner with respect to 23 the taxable year 2001, and that (2) respondent has not 24 made any other determination with respect to the 25 taxable year 2001 that would serve to confer Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 jurisdiction on this Court . 2 Also in his motion, respondent advised that 3 petitioner was noncommittal about her position wit h 4 regard to the motion, see Rule 50(a), and tha t 4 5 petition reserved the right to discuss the matter with Ke y 6 her legal advisor . 7 By Order dated February 21, 2008, and served 8 on petitioner by certified mail on February 25, 2008, 9 respondent's motion was calendared for hearing o n 10 March 10, 2008, in Denver, Colorado . 11 Pursuant to multiple notice, this case was 12 called from the calendar on March 10, 2008, in Denver, 13 Colorado . Counsel for respondent appeared . However, 14 there was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner . 15 Later that day, this case was recalled from th e 16 calendar . Again, Counsel for respondent appeared, but 17 there was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner . 18 The Court then announced from the bench tha t 19 respondent's motion would be recalled later in the 20 week, on Thursday, March 13, 2008, at 9 :30 a .m . for 21 hearing on respondent's motion . 22 At the second recall, counsel for respondent 23 appearedpetitioner did not . The matter the n 24 proceeded, with counsel arguing in support of th e 25 pending motion . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 VI . 2 Because this Court may only hear and decide 3 a case on the merits if the Court has jurisdiction , 4 the threshold issue for decision is necessarily 5 whether , insofar as the taxable year 2001 i s 6 concerned, Janet K . Mittan (petitioner ) filed he r 7 petition for determination of relief from joint and 8 several liability on a joint return consistent with ,,r(cid:127) (cid:127) 9 the provisions of section 6015(e) . 10 VII . 11 The facts necessary to a resolution of the 12 jurisdictional issue are as follows : 13 Petitioner was formerly married to Barry 14 Mittan , but was divorced from him in November 2002 . 15 Prior to the divorce , Petitioner and Mr . Mittan filed 16 joint federal income tax returns, specificall y 17 including joint returns for the taxable years 2000 and 18 2001 . 19 In April 2007, petitioner prepared a Request 20 for Innocent Spouse Relief in respect of the taxable 21 years 2000 and 2001 . Petitioner dated the reques t 22 April 25 , 2007, and mailed it to respondent, who 23 received on May 1, 2007 . 24 By letter dated May 22, 2007, respondent 25 sent petitioner by regular first-class mail a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 Preliminary Determination . The Preliminary 2 Determination referenced both the taxable years 2000 3 and 2001, and it began with the following paragraph : 4 "We considered your Form 8857, Request for 5 Innocent Spouse Relief (And Separation of 6 Liability and Equitable Relief), and have 7 made our determination . In this letter,\J 8 explain our decision and tell you steps you 9 can take if you disagree with us . If you do 10 not respond, we will make our final decision 11 based on the information we have available ." 12 The Preliminary Determination then went on 13 to state that, "We propose to deny relief under IR C 14 section (s) 6015(f) . " 15 The record is unclear whether petitioner 16 responded to the Preliminary Determination . In any 17 event, by letter dated July 18, 2007, respondent sent 18 petitioner by certified mail a Final Determination . 19 Unlike the May 22, 2007, Preliminary Determination, 20 the Final Determination referenced only the taxable 21 year 2000 . It began by stating : "We considered your 22 Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief (An d 23 Separation of Liability and Equitable Relief), and 24 have made our final determination ." It then went on 25 to sustain the Preliminary Determination and den y Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 (cid:127) ► 7 1 petitioner relief under section 6015(f) . 2 On July 30, 2007, petitioner filed with the 3 Court a petition for determination of relief from 4 joint and several liability on a joint return, seeking 5 to place in issue both the taxable year 2000 and the 6 taxable year 2001 . The petition arrived at the Court 7 in an envelope bearing a United States Postal Service 8 postmark date of July 28, 2007 . Petitioner attached 9 to the petition as exhibits a copy of the July 18 , 10 2007, Final Determination and a copy of the May 22, 11 2007, Preliminary Determination . 12 As indicated, on February 13, 2008 , 13 respondent filed his Motion To Dismiss For Lack of 14 Jurisdiction And To Strike As To The Taxable Year 15 2001 . In the motion, respondent contends tha t 16 dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is required insofar 17 as the taxable year 2001 is concerned, becaus e 18 petitioner filed her petition prematurely as to that 19 year . Respondent does not question the Court' s 20 jurisdiction insofar as the taxable year 2000 is 21 concerned . 22 VIII . 23 The Tax Court is a court of limite d 24 jurisdiction . See sec . 7442 . Accordingly, we may 25 exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 8 1 authorized by statute . Breman v . Commissioner , 6 6 2 T .C . 61, 66 (1976) . In addition, jurisdiction must be 3 proven affirmatively, and a party invoking ou r 4 jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have 5 jurisdiction over the party's case . See Fehrs v . 6 7 Commissioner , 65 T .C . 346, 348 (1975) ; Wheeler' s Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc . v . Commissioner , 35 T .C . 177, 8 180 (1960) ; National Comm . to Secure Justice, Etc . v . 9 Commissioner , 27 T .C . 837, 839 (1957) . In order to 10 meet this burden, the party must establish 11 affirmatively all facts giving rise to ou r 12 jurisdiction . See Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc . 13 14 v . Commissioner , supra at 180 ; Consolidated Co . v . Commissioner , 15 B .T .A . 645, 651 (1929) . 15 IX . 16 Rule 320(b) provides that the Court shall 17 have jurisdiction of an action for determination of 18 relief from joint and several liability on a joint 19 return when the conditions of section 6015(e) have 20 been satisfied . Therefore, we must necessaril y 21 consult that section . 22 As relevant herein, and as applicable to the 23 taxable year 2001, section 6015(e) provides that i n 24 the case of an individual who requests equitabl e 25 relief under section 6015(f) as a so-called innocent Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 spouse , such individual may petition the Tax Court, 2 and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction, t o 3 determine the appropriate relief available to such 4 individual if such petition is filed after the dat e 5 that is six months after the date that the request for 6 equitable relief is filed with the Commissioner . Sec . 7 6015 ( e)(1)(A)(i )( II) . Essentially what the statut e 8 requires is that the taxpayer allow the Commissioner a 9 six-month period of time to consider the request for 10 relief before any lawsuit is commenced . Thereafter, 11 if the Commissioner has not acted , the statute permits 12 the taxpayer to file a petition with this Court . 13 In the instant case, petitioner ' s request 14 for equitable relief, i .e ., the Form 8857 , was filed 15 with respondent on May 1, 2007 . Petitioner ' s petition 16 was filed with the Court about three months later on 17 July 30 , 2007 . Thus , the petition , insofar as the 18 taxable year 2001 is concerned, was filed prematurely . 19 As a consequence , the Court lacks jurisdiction ove r 20 the taxable year 2001 , and we are constrained to grant 21 respondent ' s motion to dismiss that year . 22 If the petition for 2001 was premature, as 23 it was, petitioner might ask why the petition for 2000 24 was not, given the fact that petitioner ' s request for 25 relief included both years , as did her petition . The Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 0 1 answer to this inquiry lies in the intricacies of 2 section 6015 ( e) . The section provides that if the 3 Commissioner does mail to a taxpayer a fina l 4 determination denying the taxpayer's request fo r 5 relief, then the taxpayer must file a petition "not 6 later than the close of the 90th day after the date" 7 that the final determination was mailed . In the 8 instant case, respondent mailed the fina l 9 determination on July 18 , 2007, and petition filed her 10 petition well before the close of the 90th da y 11 thereafter . 12 In sum, the petition in the instant case was 13 timely insofar as the taxable year 2000 is concerned, 14 because respondent mailed a final determination t o 15 petitioner and petitioner appealed therefrom by filing 16 a petition with this Court within the requisite 90-day 17 period . In contrast , the petition was prematur e 18 insofar as the taxable year 2001 is concerned because 19 respondent did not mail a final determination t o 20 petitioner and petitioner filed her petition before 21 the lapse of the statutory six-month period . 22 X . 23 In view of the foregoing , we hold that the 24 petition in this case was prematurely filed by virtue 25 of section 6015(e)(1)(A)(1)(II) . Accordingly, we Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 11 1 shall grant respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack o f 2 Jurisdiction And To Strike As To The Taxable Yea r 3 2001, filed February 13, 2008, and we shall dismiss 4 this case for lack of jurisdiction insofar as th e 5 taxable year 2001 is concerned on the ground that the 6 petition was prematurely filed . Finally, we shal l 7 strike from the petition all references to the taxable 8 year 2001 . 9 XI . 10 Now a postscript . 11 Although petitioner cannot pursue a case in 12 this Court insofar as the taxable year 2001 i s 13 concerned, counsel for respondent appeared t o 14 acknowledge at the hearing that in the absence of a 15 final determination by respondent for that year, and 16 given the passage of more than six months from the 17 date of filing of petitioner's request for relief, 18 petitioner would be now free to file a petition with 19 the Court for 2001 if she wished to do so . Of course, 20 the fact that the Court might have jurisdiction over 21 that year if a petition were now filed does not mean 22 that petitioner is necessarily entitled to relie f 23 under section 6015(f) for that year . 24 XII . 25 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS O F Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . 2 (Whereupon, at 10 :30 a .m ., the bench opinion 3 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 1 2 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 1 4 15 1 6 1 7 18 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888