TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Paul A. Grindstaff & Kim M. Grindstaff
Docket Number: 20516-10SL
Judge: Armen
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/12/2012
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 PAUL A. GRINDSTAFF AND KIM M. GRINDSTAFF, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 20516-10SL. ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioners 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 Dallas, Texas, on February 28, 2012, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the hearing. In accordance with the oral fin_dings_of_facLag opinion, an Order and Dismissal will be entered. (Signed) Robert N. Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 12, 2012 SERVED MAR 1 2 2012 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 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N. Armen, Jr. Grindstaff v. Commissioner Docket No. 20516-10SL 3 February 28, 2012 I. 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. THE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. See Rule 152(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. II . This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Case pursuant to the provisions of section 7463(f) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . See and compare Rules 330 through 334 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . III. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Hereinafter in this bench opinion, all Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 4 section numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and all Rule numbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All dollar amounts are rounded to the closest dollar. IV. Stephanie J. Rakoski appeared on behalf of respondent. There was no appearance by or on behalf of either petitioner. V. By Notice dated September 23, 2011, and served on petitioners by mail on that same date, this case was calendared for trial on February 27, 2012, in Dallas, Texas. However, on February 10, 2012, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss On Ground Of Mootness, a copy of which was served by respondent on petitioners by mail on that same date. In his motion, respondent contends that this case should be dismissed as moot given that, subsequent to the filing of the petition, the tax liability for 2007, the sole taxable year at issue in this case, was paid in full and the proposed levy is no longer necessary. By Order dated February 14, 2012, and served on petitioners by mail on that same date, the Court calendared respondent's motion for hearing in Dallas, Texas, on February 27, 2012. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 VI. 5 The facts relevant to the disposition of respondent's motion may be briefly summarized as follows: Petitioners resided in the State of Texas at the time that the petition was filed with the Court. Petitioners jointly filed a Federal income tax return for 2007. On their return, petitioners reported taxable income of $326,278 and tax of $86,692. Petitioners did not, however, pay the reported liability in full at the time that they filed their return. On November 10, 2009, respondent sent to petitioners a Final Notice-Notice Of Intent To Levy And Notice Of Your Right To A Hearing (final notice). See sec. 6330(a). Respondent issued the final notice in respect of petitioners' outstanding tax liability for 2007, which liability included penalties and statutory interest. In response to the final notice, petitioners requested a so-called collection due process hearing with respondent's Office of Appeals. Ultimately, at the end of the administrative process, respondent's Office of Appeals sent to petitioners a Notice Of Determination Concerning Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 Collection Action Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 dated August 11, 2010 (notice of determination). In the notice of determination, the Office of Appeals sustained the proposed levy. In response to the notice of determination, petitioners filed with this Court a petition pursuant to section 6330(d) (1). In the petition, the liability for 2007 was expressly acknowledged, and an installment payment plan was requested. During the pendency of the collection action in this Court, petitioners made a payment of $18,789 on January 24, 2012, which payment served to satisfy in full their outstanding liability for 2007, including accrued penalties and interest. In fact, such payment exceeded petitioners' outstanding liability by $45, which amount was applied to an outstanding liability for 2008. As a direct consequence of the January 24, 2012, payment and the satisfaction in full of petitioners' outstanding liability for 2007, respondent no longer needs, nor intends, to levy to collect the liability for that year. As previously stated, on February 10, 2012, respondent filed his Motion To Dismiss On Ground Of Mootness. Respondent attached to his motion a literal Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 7 transcript of account for 2007. The transcript confirms that petitioners have no outstanding liability (including accruals) for 2007. Because respondent was unable to represent that neither petitioner had any objection to the granting of his motion, and further in view of the imminent trial date, the Court calendared the motion for hearing. On Monday, February 27, 2012, respondent's Motion To Dismiss On Ground Of Mootness was called for hearing in Dallas, Texas. Respondent's counsel appeared and was heard. There was no appearance by or on behalf of either petitioner. VII. The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. See sec. 7442. Accordingly, we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In addition, jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a party invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the party's case. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960); National Comm. to Secure Justice, Etc. v. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 8 Commissioner, 27 T.C. 837, 839 (1957). In order to meet this burden, the party must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction. See Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 180; Consolidated Co. v. Commissioner, 15 B.T.A. 645, 651 (1929). In Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1 (2006), the Court held that: (1) The taxpayer's challenges to the Commissioner's collection action (a proposed levy) were moot because there was no unpaid tax liability upon which a levy could be based and the Commissioner would not take any further collection action; (2) this Court lacks jurisdiction,in a lien or levy case (collection review case) to determine an overpayment or to order a refund or credit of taxes; and (3) the taxpayer's case should be dismissed as moot. The reasoning of Green-Thapedi v. Commissioner, supra, applies equally to the present case. We are therefore obliged to grant respondent's February 10, 2012 motion to dismiss. VIII. In conclusion, we shall enter an Order Of Dismissal (1) granting respondent's Motion To Dismiss On Ground Of Mootness, filed February 10, 2012, and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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) dismissing this case on the ground that, subsequent to the filing of the petition, petitioners' tax liability for the taxable (calendar) year 2007 was paid in full and the proposed levy is therefore no 9 longer necessary. IX. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 8:59 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888