TAX COURT OPINION

Case: William T. Reid
Docket Number: 9896-12
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/17/2013
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 WILLIAM T. REID, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Docket No. 9896-12 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 on May 1, 2013, 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 May 17, 2013 SERVED MAY. 1 7 200 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 Bench Opinion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa May 1, 2013 3 William T. Reid v. Commissioner 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Docket No. 9896-12 THE COURT: 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 OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. 13 All section references are to the Internal Revenue 14 15 Code for 2009 and 2010 (the years at issue), and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of 16 Practice and Procedure. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This case is before the Court on respondents Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction filed December 18, 2012. Respondent moves to dismiss this case on the ground that, although the petition was timely filed, petitioner failed to sign the petition. The Court set respondent's motion for hearing on the Court's April 29, 2013 trial session in Los Angeles, California. Petitioner did not attend nor did anyone 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 appear on petitioner's behalf. Vanessa Hoppe appeared on behalf of respondent. The issue for decision is whether petitioner timely filed a valid petition with this 5 Court. We hold that he did not and therefore we 6 7 8 9 10 11 shall grant respondent's motion to dismiss on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction. FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes or the parties do not dispute the following facts. Petitioner resided in Los Angeles, 12 California at the time he filed the petition. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Respondent sent a deficiency notice by certified mail to petitioner at his last known address determining that petitioner had a deficiency and an accuracy-related penalty for each of the years at issue. Petitioner timely filed a petition but he failed to sign the petition. The Court ordered petitioner to file a response, or an objection to respondent's motion, or as an alternative, an Amendment to Petition. The Court specifically stated that petitioner may file with this Court an Amendment to Petition duly signed by him in which he states, if such be the case, that he read the petition and he ratifies and affirms the filing of that document. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 Petitioner has not filed either a response or 5 2 3 4 5 6 objection to respondent's motion nor has petitioner filed an Amendment to Petition. OPINION We now address whether we have jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency. We first begin with a 7 well-settled principle that this Court has 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction in a case at any time. Sarkissian v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-278. In addition, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527,529 (1985). This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on the issuance of a valid deficiency notice and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22,27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142 (1988). The Court has been liberal in treating as a petition any document a taxpayer files within the 90- day period after a deficiency notice is issued if the taxpayer intends the document to be a petition. 24 O'Neil v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 105, 107 (1976). A 25 petition must be signed by either petitioner or 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 petitioner's representative to be valid. Rule 34 (b) (7). If the document does not comply with the form and content requirements for petitions, the 4 Court is liberal in allowing the taxpayer to file an 5 amended petition to correct the technical defects. 6 O'Neil v. Commissioner, supra. 7 8 9 10 11 Here, respondent noted that the petition appeared to have been filed without petitioner's signature. Respondet's counsel thereafter sent a letter addressed to the address on the petition and asked that petitioner ratify the petition. 12 Petitioner failed to ratify the petition. 13 14 Respondent's counsel called the telephone listed on the petition. Respondent's counsel spoke with 15 petitioner's daughter who stated that her father 16 17 18 19 20 21 could not sign the petition or talk because he was incapacitated. Respondent's counsel informed petitioner's daughter that counsel could not divulge any of her father's tax information to her unless she had a power of attorney for her father. Respondent's counsel also explained that the daughter could file a 22 motion for recognition as next friend (under Rule 60) 23 24 25 if petitioner is unable to adequately represent himself. We have carefully reviewed the record in 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 this case. We find that petitioner failed to sign the petition and he failed to ratify the petition. In addition, no one has established the capacity to act on petitioner's behalf. We therefore must conclude that no valid petition was filed and we therefore lack jurisdiction. Accordingly, we shall grant respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. An appropriate order will be issued granting respondent's motion. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 9:29 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com