DocketNumber: No. 11944-05L
Citation Numbers: 2006 T.C. Memo. 237, 92 T.C.M. 400, 2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 240
Judges: \"Ruwe, Robert P.\"
Filed Date: 11/2/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RUWE,
On May 23, 2005, respondent mailed to petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions(s) Under
Dear Tax Court Judge,
The Collection Due Process Hearing that I requested has been
decided. I need your assistance regarding a Notice of
Determination I received from the Internal Revenue Service for
the tax year _2001__. I believe that it has been unfair and
biased. I was not*241 provided information that I requested from the
hearing agent.
The letter states that I must file a petition with the U.S. Tax
Court if I believe the IRS numbers are wrong. I think the IRS is
wrong but I am not sure if I am doing this protest right. I told
the IRS I didn't owe them anything and they still have not shown
me any proof to support their claim. Could you please write to
me and let me know the procedure?
I need the help of the Tax Court to clarify this matter. I am
unclear as to what rules of procedure and evidence were to
preside over my Collection Due Process Hearing. Although I asked
many times I never received any information on such procedures.
The agent was no help at all.
Now a whole new procedure is beginning and I am more confused. I
am unsure of what to do from here. Will you please advise what
my next steps are and if there is public council available for
my assistance? When am I supposed to go to court over this?
Would I receive the assistance of a public defender?
Thank you for reading my letter and trying*242 to help me.
This document failed to comply with the Rules of the Court as to the form and content of a proper petition. Nevertheless, on June 27, 2005, the Court filed the document as an imperfect petition regarding respondent's notice of determination. By order dated June 30, 2005, the Court directed petitioner to file a proper amended petition on or before August 15, 2005. The order stated that if an amended petition was not received on or before August 15, 2005, the case would be dismissed. By order dated September 13, 2005, the Court extended the time for petitioner to file an amended petition until October 3, 2005. Petitioner failed to comply with the Court's orders to file an amended petition. On December 21, 2005, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction (order of dismissal).
On April 26, 2006, 126*243 days after the Court entered its order of dismissal, petitioner mailed to the Court two documents entitled "Motion for Leave to File Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction" and "Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction" (motion to vacate). 2 Petitioner's motion for leave and motion to vacate state in relevant part:
PETITIONER respectfully requests permission from the Court to
file this motion to vacate "ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION" for the tax year/s 2001, with Docket No.
11944-05L. PETITIONER also request [sic] leave from the court to
accept PETITIONER's amended petition. PETITIONER desires to
dispute the RESPONDENT's determination made with respect to
PETITIONER's income taxes for the tax year.
PETITIONER respectfully requests that the Court vacate its Order
of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction and determine the case
laid out by the PETITIONER's Amended Petition, which will be
*244 filed concurrently with this motion. PETITIONER will also file
Motion to Remand and Designation of Place of Trial concurrently
with this motion.
Petitioner submitted an amended petition concurrently with the motion for leave and the motion to vacate. On June 1, 2006, the Court filed petitioner's motion for leave and lodged the motion to vacate and the amended petition.
This Court can proceed in a case only if it has jurisdiction, and either party, or the Court sua sponte, can question jurisdiction at any time.
On December 21, 2005, we dismissed petitioner's case for lack of jurisdiction. An order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is treated as the Court's decision.
dismisses a proceeding for lack of jurisdiction, an order to
that effect shall be entered in the records of the Tax Court,
and the decision of the Tax Court shall be held to be rendered
upon the date of such entry.
The word "decision" refers to decisions determining a deficiency and orders of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
In order for us to consider the substantive merits of petitioner's motion for leave, we must still have jurisdiction.
Pursuant to
*248 If a motion for leave to file a motion to vacate is filed before the order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction becomes final and the Court grants the motion for leave, then the time for appeal is extended.
The Court entered the order of dismissal on December 21, 2005, and petitioner did not file a notice of appeal within the time prescribed by
1. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Both documents were signed and dated Apr. 26, 2006, and the envelope in which these documents were sent bears a postmark of Apr. 26, 2006.↩
3. As previously explained, an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is treated as the Court's decision.↩
4.
(a) How Obtained; Time for Filing Notice of Appeal. (1) Review
of a decision of the United States Tax Court is commenced by
filing a notice of appeal with the Tax Court clerk within 90
days after the entry of the Tax Court's decision. At the time of
filing, the appellant must furnish the clerk with enough copies
of the notice to enable the clerk to comply with Rule 3(d). If
one party files a timely notice of appeal, any other party may
file a notice of appeal within 120 days after the Tax Court's
decision is entered. (2) If, under Tax Court rules, a party
makes a timely motion to vacate or revise the Tax Court's
decision, the time to file a notice of appeal runs from the
entry of the order disposing of the motion or from the entry of
a new decision, whichever is later.↩
5. In
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The S. Frieder & Sons ... , 228 F.2d 478 ( 1955 )
Raymond J. Ryan and Helen Ryan v. Commissioner of Internal ... , 517 F.2d 13 ( 1975 )
Laura Heim v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Clarence ... , 872 F.2d 245 ( 1989 )
The Manchester Group Subsidiaries, Formerly Torrey ... , 113 F.3d 1087 ( 1997 )
William G. Nordvik Claire N. Nordvik v. Commissioner ... , 67 F.3d 1489 ( 1995 )
Haley v. Commissioner , 805 F. Supp. 834 ( 1992 )
Estate of Young v. Commissioner , 81 T.C. 879 ( 1983 )