DocketNumber: No. 14907-05L
Citation Numbers: 2006 T.C. Memo. 248, 92 T.C.M. 434, 2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 253
Judges: \"Ruwe, Robert P.\"
Filed Date: 11/14/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RUWE,
On July 8, 2005, respondent issued 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 2000. I believe that it has been unfair and biased.
I was not provided*254 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. Would you please advise me as
to what my next steps are and whether or not there is public
council [sic] 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*255 for reading my letter and trying to help me.
This document failed to comply with the Rules of the Court as to the form and content of a proper petition. Petitioner also failed to submit the required filing fee. Nevertheless, on August 10, 2005, the Court filed petitioner's document as an imperfect petition regarding respondent's notice of determination. By order dated August 15, 2005, the Court directed petitioner to file an amended petition and to pay the filing fee on or before September 29, 2005. The order stated that if an amended petition and the filing fee were not received on or before September 29, 2005, the case would be dismissed. By order dated October 19, 2005, the Court extended the time for petitioner to file a proper amended petition and to pay the filing fee until November 10, 2005. By order dated January 12, 2006, the*256 Court acknowledged that petitioner had paid the filing fee and afforded petitioner one more opportunity to file an amended petition by extending the time to file such amended petition until February 9, 2006. Petitioner failed to comply with the Court's orders to file an amended petition. On March 28, 2006, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction (order of dismissal).
On June 22, 2006, 86 days after the order of dismissal was entered, petitioner mailed to the Court two documents entitled "Request Permission to File Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction" (motion for leave) and "Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction" (motion to vacate) Petitioner's motions 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 2000, with Docket No.
14907-05L. PETITIONER also request [sic] leave from the court
to accept PETITIONER's amended petition. PETITIONER desires*257 to
dispute the RESPONDENT's determination made with respect to
PETITIONER's income taxes for the tax year. PETITIONER will file
Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction
concurrently with this Motion.
PETITIONER respectfully requests that the Court vacate its Order
of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction with the Docket No.
14907-05L, for the Tax Year 2000. PETITIONER also
request [sic] for the Court to determine the case lay [sic] out
by the PETITIONER's Amended Petition, which will be filed
concurrently with this motion. PETITIONER will also file an
Amended Petition and the Designation of Place of Trial
concurrently with this motion.
On June 28, 2006, 92 days after the order of dismissal was entered, the Court filed the former document as a "Motion to File Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction" (motion for leave). The Court also received petitioner's amended petition on June 28, 2006.
This Court can proceed in a case only if it has jurisdiction, and either*258 party, or the Court sua sponte, can question jurisdiction at any time.
On March 28, 2006, we dismissed petitioner's case for lack of jurisdiction. An order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is treated as the Court's decision.
SEC. 7459(c). Date of Decision. -- * * * if the Tax Court
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.
Except for very limited exceptions, none of which applies here, this Court lacks jurisdiction once an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction becomes final within the meaning of
Pursuant to
*261 Petitioner's motion for leave was postmarked and mailed prior to the expiration of the 90-day appeal period. The timely- mailing/timely-filing provisions of
Whether to grant petitioner's motion for leave is discretionary.
Petitioner failed to file an amended petition or to pay the required filing fee in accordance with the Court's August 15, 2005, order. On October 19, 2005, the Court extended the time for petitioner to file an amended petition and to pay the filing fee until November 10, 2005. On January 12, 2006, the Court granted a second extension to file an amended petition until February 9, 2006. Though petitioner paid the filing fee, she failed to comply with the Court's orders to file a proper amended petition. After her case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, petitioner waited until the time for appeal was about to expire to file her motion for leave.
Petitioner has been afforded several*264 opportunities and sufficient time to file her amended petition. Petitioner has repeatedly failed to comply with the Court's orders, and she has provided no reasonable excuses for her lack of compliance. Therefore, in the exercise of our discretion and in the interests of justice, we will deny petitioner's motion for leave. 5 It follows that the Court's order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction in this case became final on June 26, 2006, 90 days after the order of dismissal was entered.
To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all 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. As previously explained, an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is treated as the Court's decision.↩
3.
(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.↩
4. In
5.
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 )