TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Evaristus Udoisa
Docket Number: 11401-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/05/2008
Pages: 12

P,DM . RECORDED SERVICE UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 EVARISTUS UDOISA, Petitione r v . ) Docket No . 11401-07S . 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 Chicago, Illinois, on April 23, 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 Order and Order Of Dismissal For Lack Of Jurisdiction will be entered . (Signed ) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . June 5, 2008 SERVED JUN - 9 Me 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 . April 23, 20 0 Udoisa v . Commissioner Docket No . 11401-07 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 Ta x Case, pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 o f the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, an d Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules o f Practice and 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 amended, and all Rule numbers refer to the Tax Cour t Rules of Practice and Procedure . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 IV . 2 Evaristus Udoisa appeared on his own behalf . 3 Thomas D . Yang appeared on behalf of respondent . 4 V . 5 By Notice dated and served on petitioner by 6 certified mail on November 27, 2007, this case wa s 7 calendared for trial on April 21, 2008, in Chicago, 8 Illinois. However, on March 20, 2008, responden t 9 filed two motions, which, if granted, would serve to 10 completely dispose of this case . 11 The first motion is directed at the taxable 12 year 1999 . It is a Motion To Close On The Ground Of 13 Duplication . In it, respondent moves to close th e 14 instant case, insofar as it involves the taxable year 15 1999, on the ground that it is a duplicate of the case 16 filed at dkt . No . 11935-03 . 17 The second motion is directed at th e 18 remaining taxable years at issue in the instant case, 19 i .e ., the taxable years 2000 through 2004 . It is a 20 Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction And T o 21 Strike As To the Taxable Years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 22 and 2004 . In it, respondent moves to dismiss those 23 five taxable years on the ground that no statutory 24 notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 25 and required by section 6213(a) to form the basis fo r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 a petition to this Court, has been sent to petitioner 2 with respect to those five taxable years, nor ha s 3 respondent made any other determination with respect 4 to those five taxable years that would confe r 5 jurisdiction on this Court . 6 By Order dated March 24, 2008, and served on 7 petitioner by certified mail on March 25, 2008, th e 8 Court calendared both of respondent's March 20, 2008, 9 motions for hearing at the trial session in Chicago, 10 Illinois, on April 21, 2008 . 11 Pursuant to notice, this case was called 12 from the calendar on April 21, 2008, in Chicago , 13 Illinois . Both petitioner and counsel for respondent 14 appeared and were heard . Counsel for respondent also 15 introduced as an exhibit a literal transcript o f 16 petitioner's account for 1999 pursuant to the Court's 17 Order dated March 25, 2008, requiring the production 18 of account information for that taxable year . 19 VI . 20 Because this Court may only hear and decide 21 a case on the merits if the Court has jurisdiction, 22 the threshold issue for decision is necessaril y 23 whether the Court has jurisdiction over any of the six 24 taxable years, i .e ., 1999 through 2004, that Evaristus 25 Udoisa (petitioner) seeks to place in issue . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 Although respondent's Motion To Dismiss For 2 Lack Of Jurisdiction And To Strike As To The Taxable 3 Years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 clearl y 4 contemplates a dismissal of those five taxable years 5 on jurisdictional grounds, respondent's Motion To 6 Close On The Ground Of Duplication does no t 7 contemplate the dismissal of 1999 on jurisdictiona l 8 grounds . However, as we shall see, dismissal of 1999 9 on jurisdictional grounds is appropriate . 10 VII . 11 The facts necessary to a resolution o f 12 respondent's two motions and the proper disposition of 13 the instant case are as follows : 14 Petitioner filed a joint income tax return 15 for 1999 . On the return, petitioner reported a tax 16 liability and claimed withholding . However, he did 17 not remit with the return the balance due . 18 By a "Reminder Notice" dated February 28 , 19 2002, respondent's service center in Cincinnati, Ohio, 20 reminded petitioner of his outstanding liability for 21 1999 . The first sentence of this notice states a s 22 follows : "We are required by law to remind you 23 periodically in writing about your overdue tax . The 24 amount you owe is shown on the back of this letter ." 25 On May 13, 2003, respondent sent petitione r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 a notice of deficiency . In the notice, responden t 2 determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income 3 tax for the taxable year 1999, together with a n 4 addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failure 5 to timely file and an accuracy-related penalty under 6 section 6662 . 7 Petitioner contested respondent's deficiency 8 determination by timely filing a petition fo r 9 redetermination with this Court . This action, which 10 was docketed as No . 11935-03, was ultimately resolved 11 by agreement of the parties, and a Decision wa s 12 entered by the Court on March 23, 2004 . The Decision 13 reflected the parties' agreement that petitioner was 14 liable for a reduced deficiency, addition to tax, and 15 penalty for the taxable year 1999 . 16 Neither party filed a notice of appeal and, 17 in due course, the Court's Decision at dkt . No . 11935- 18 03 became final . See secs . 7481(a)(1), 7483 . 19 Thereafter, respondent assessed the deficiency , 20 together with the addition to tax and penalty, and 21 sent petitioner a notice of balance due . See sec . 22 6303(a) . Petitioner did not immediately pay the 23 outstanding balance . 24 Respondent has not determined a deficiency 25 in petitioner's income tax for any of the taxable Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 years 2000 through 2004, and respondent has not sent 2 petitioner a notice of deficiency for any of those of 3 those years . 4 Respondent has not sent petitioner a notice 5 of determination for any of the taxable years 199 9 6 through 2004 . 7 On May 21, 2007, petitioner filed a one-page 8 imperfect petition with this Court . No notice o r 9 other document was attached as an exhibit to th e 10 imperfect petition . The imperfect petition referenced 11 1999 through 2004 as the taxable years in dispute . 12 On June 13, 2007, petitioner filed a n 13 amended petition utilizing T .C . Form 2 . In paragraph 14 1, petitioner characterized the amended petition as 15 16 both a petition for redetermination of a deficiency and a petition for lien or levy action (collectio n 17 action) . 18 In paragraph 2 of the amended petition, 19 petitioner referenced six taxable years in dispute, 20 i .e ., 1999 through 2004 . Petitioner also referenced 21 an IRS notice dated February 28, 2002, as the notice 22 from which he was appealing . Petitioner attached a 23 copy of that notice as an exhibit to the amende d 24 petition . The notice was the "Reminder Notice" that 25 was previously described . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 On March 20, 2008, respondent filed the two 2 motions that are currently before the Court . 3 VIII . 4 The Tax Court is a court of limite d 5 jurisdiction . See sec . 7442 . Accordingly, we may 6 exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly 7 authorized by statute . Breman v . Commissioner , 6 6 8 T .C . 61, 66 (1976) . In addition, jurisdiction must be 9 proven affirmatively, and a party invoking ou r 10 jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have 11 jurisdiction over the party's case . See Fehrs v . 12 13 Commissioner , 65 T .C . 346, 348 (1975) ; Wheeler' s Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc . v . Commissioner , 35 T .C . 177, 14 180 (1960) ; National Comm . to Secure Justice, Etc . v . 15 Commissioner , 27 T .C . 837, 839 (1957) . In order to 16 meet this burden, the party must establis h 17 affirmatively all facts giving rise to ou r 18 jurisdiction . See Wheeler's Peach Pharmacy, Inc . v . 19 20 Commissioner , supra at 180 ; Consolidated Co . v . Commissioner , 15 B .T .A . 645, 651 (1929) . 21 IX . 22 Lien or Levy Actio n 23 In the amended petition filed June 13, 2007, 24 petitioner characterizes this case, in part, as a lien 25 or levy action (collection action) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9 1 In a collection action, i .e ., a lien or levy 2 action, this Court's jurisdiction under sections 6320 3 and 6330 depends in part, on the issuance of a notice 4 of determination by respondent's office of Appeal s 5 after the taxpayer has requested an administrative 6 hearing following the issuance by respondent' s 7 collection division of either a final notice of intent 8 to levy, see sec . 6330(a), or a notice of filing o f 9 10 11 12 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 13 330(b) . 14 The only exhibit attached to the amended 15 petition in the instant case is a "Reminder Notice" 16 from respondent's Cincinnati, Ohio, Service Center 17 dated February 28, 2002, reminding petitioner of an 18 outstanding liability for 1999 . However, th e 19 "Reminder Notice" is not a notice of determination 20 within the meaning of section 6330, and respondent's 21 Office of Appeals has not sent petitioner any notice 22 of determination . Indeed, the record indicates that 23 petitioner no longer has an open account for 1999 . 24 In the absence of a notice of determination, 25 this Court lacks jurisdiction in a lien or levy action Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 1 1 6212(b) ; Frieling v . Commissioner , supra at 52 . If a 2 notice of deficiency is mailed to the taxpayer at the 3 taxpayer's last known address, actual receipt of the 4 notice is immaterial . King v . Commissioner , 857 F .2d 5 676, 679 (9th Cir . 1988), affg . 88 T .C . 1042 (1987) ; 6 7 Yusko v . Commissioner , 89 T .C . 806, 810 (1987) ; Frieling v . Commissioner , supra at 52 . The taxpayer, 8 in turn, has 90 days from the date that the notice of 9 deficiency is mailed to file a petition in this Court 10 for a redetermination of the deficiency . Sec . 11 6213(a) . A petition that is timely mailed is deemed 12 to be timely filed . 13 Petitioner did not attach as an exhibit to 14 the amended petition a copy of any notice o f 15 deficiency, nor has petitioner ever referenced an y 16 notice of deficiency . Moreover, respondent represents 17 that no notice of deficiency has been sent t o 18 petitioner for any of the five taxable years 2000 19 through 2004 . 20 In the absence of a deficiency notice, this 21 Court lacks jurisdiction in a redetermination action . 22 Accordingly, the Court shall grant so much o f 23 respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Lack o f 24 Jurisdiction And To Strike As To The Taxable Year s 25 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 that moves to dismiss Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 12 1 for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no notice 2 of deficiency has been sent for any of those years . 3 We shall also deny so much of that motion as moves to 4 strike because our action as described herein shall be 5 sufficient to completely dispose of the instant case . 6 XI . 7 In sum, we hold that the Court lack s 8 jurisdiction in this case because, as to the taxabl e 9 year 1999, respondent's office of Appeals has not sent 10 petitioner any notice of determination within th e 11 meaning of section 6330 and, as to the taxable years 12 2000 through 2004, respondent has not sent petitioner 13 any notice of deficiency within the meaning of section 14 6212 . Accordingly, we shall enter an Order And Order 15 Of Dismissal For Lack Of Jurisdiction in which w e 16 shall : (1) Deny respondent's Motion To Close On The 17 Ground Of Duplication, filed March 20, 2008 ; (2 ) 18 dismiss on our own motion the taxable year 1999 on the 19 ground that no notice of determination for that year 20 has been sent to petitioner by respondent's office of 21 Appeals ; and (3) grant so much of respondent's Motion 22 To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction And To Strike As 23 To The Taxable Years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 24 as moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on th e 25 ground that no notice of deficiency for any of those Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 3 1 years has been sent to petitioner by respondent, and 2 deny so much of that motion as moves to strike . Our 3 action in so doing shall be sufficient to completely 4 dispose of the instant case . 5 XII . 6 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT ' S ORAL FINDINGS OF 7 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . 8 (Whereupon , at 2 :35 p .m ., the bench opinion 9 in the above - entitled matter was concluded . ) 10 11 12 13 / / 14 15 16 / / 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 / / 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888