TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Robyn A. Williams
Docket Number: 23347-11L
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/25/2012
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 ROBYN A. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 23347-11L ORDER 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 proceedings of the above case before Judge Diane L. Kroupa at Las Vegas, Nevada, on March 15, 2012, containing her oral findings of fact and opimon. In accordance withe the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order will be entered granting respondent's motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. April 25, 2012 SERVED APR 3 0 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 JUDGE DIANE L. KROUPA ROBYN A. WILLIAMS V. COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO.: 23347-11 MARCH 15, 2012 - 3 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. The 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. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for 2007, the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This case is before the Court on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed on December 6, 2011. Petitioner filed an objection and Respondent responded to Petitioner's objection. The Court scheduled Respondent's motion for a hearing in Las Vegas, Nevada. Both Robert Grossman and Derek Hatch appeared on behalf of Petitioner, and Ric Hulshoff 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 appeared on behalf of the Respondent. FINDINGS OF FACT The record establishes or the parties do not dispute the following facts. Petitioner resided in Nevada when she filed the petition. Respondent issued to Petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (determination notice), dated May 25, 2011, regarding Petitioner's offer in compromise for the 2007 tax year. The determination notice specified that the deadline for filing a petition with the Tax Court was 30 days from the date of the letter. Petitioner filed a petition on October 12, 2011. As mentioned previously, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and Petitioner objected. The Court held a hearing on Respondent's motion in Las Vegas, Nevada. OPINION We must address whether we have jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's case. Respondent asks us to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction because the petition was mailed more than 30 days after the determination notice was mailed. Petitioner's counsel tell us that an original petition was timely mailed, 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 and that the October petition-is a duplicate filed upon discovering that the original petition had never been filed. Petitioner's counsel tell us that they sent two petitions to the Court in the same envelope. They claim that they prepared Petitioner's petition and another petition, both of which were mailed together. They have proof that they mailed an envelope to the Court and proof that the envelope was received by the Court. The other petition in the envelope was received and timely filed. They seek to convince us that Petitioner's petition was in the same envelope and should have been filed at the same time. Petitioner's counsel argue that they know two petitions were included in the envelope at issue because the cost of mailing two petitions is higher than the cost of mailing one petition. They claim to have learned that Petitioner's petition was not filed in October 2011 when they discovered that the filing fee check in Petitioner's case was not cashed. Petitioner's counsel does not, however, provide any evidence to support their position. Mere allegations are not enough. It could have been helpful if counsel had shown what was the firm's file copy for Petitioner and the other client. 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 6 The Court is aware of best practice procedures for law firms, especially with time sensitive materials, such as here. We now address whether we have jurisdiction. 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). The Tax Court's jurisdiction is contingent upon the issuance of a valid determination notice and the filing of a timely petition. Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C, 492, 498 (2000). Precision is required for a timely petition. Once the Commissioner has mailed a valid determination notice to the taxpayer's last known address, the taxpayer must file a petition with this Court within 30 days. Sec. 6330(d) (1). Petitioner bears the burden of proving that the Court has jurisdiction over this case. See Patz Trust v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 497, 503 (1977). This Court has consistently followed a liberal policy with respect to treating as petitions documents timely filed by taxpayers and intended as petitions. O'Neil v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 105, 107 (1976). Petitioner and her counsel simply failed to 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 convince the Court that her petition was included in the envelope mailed on June 23, 2011, with the other petition which was filed. She has failed to meet her burden of proof, so we must grant Respondent's motion. To reflect the foregoing, an appropriate order will be issued granting Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:40 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888