113 T.C. No. 8
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
IVAN AND BETTY LEE TURNER GATI, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 3730-99. Filed August 11, 1999.
On Aug. 13, 1998, R mailed a final determination
letter to Ps denying their request for abatement of
interest for the taxable year 1978. On Feb. 17, 1999,
Ps filed an imperfect petition for review with the
Court under sec. 6404(g), I.R.C.
Held: This case will be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not
filed with the Court within the 180-day period
prescribed in sec. 6404(g)(1), I.R.C.
Ivan and Betty Lee Turner Gati, pro se.
Pamela Wilson Fuller and Oleida Mendiburt, for respondent.
- 2 -
OPINION
DAWSON, Judge: This case was assigned to Chief Special
Trial Judge Peter J. Panuthos pursuant to Rules 180, 181, and
183. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code as amended, and all Rule references are
to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The Court agrees with and adopts the opinion of the Special
Trial Judge, which is set forth below.
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This matter is before
the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction. The question presented is whether the petition was
filed within the 180-day period prescribed in section 6404(g)(1).
(Section 6404(g) was redesignated section 6404(i) under the
Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998,
Pub. L. 105-206, secs. 3305(a) and 3309(a), 112 Stat. 743, 745,
effective with respect to tax years beginning after December 31,
1997.)
Background
On August 13, 1998, respondent mailed a final determination
letter to petitioners denying their request for an abatement of
interest for the taxable year 1978. The final determination
- 3 -
letter was mailed to petitioners at 47 Halstead Avenue, Harrison,
NY 10528 (the Halstead Avenue address).
On February 17, 1999, petitioners filed an imperfect
petition for review of respondent's failure to grant their
request for abatement of interest. The petition arrived at the
Court in an envelope bearing a U.S. Postal Service postmark date
of February 15, 1999. At the time the petition was filed,
petitioners resided at the Halstead Avenue address.
In response to the petition, respondent filed a Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction asserting that the petition was
not filed within the 180-day period prescribed in section
6404(g)(1). Respondent provided the Court with a copy of Postal
Service Form 3877 as proof that the final determination letter
was mailed to petitioners on August 13, 1998. Petitioners filed
an objection to respondent's motion to dismiss asserting that
respondent had unreasonably delayed in denying their request for
abatement and that they should not be denied their day in court.
This matter was called for hearing at the Court's motions
session in Washington, D.C. Counsel for respondent appeared at
the hearing and presented argument in support of the pending
motion. Petitioners filed a written statement with the Court
pursuant to Rule 50(c) and no appearance was made on their behalf
at the hearing.
- 4 -
Discussion
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may
exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by
Congress. See Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).
Section 6404(g), enacted by section 302(a) of the Taxpayer
Bill of Rights 2, Pub. L. 104-168, 110 Stat. 1452, 1457 (1996),
prescribes the Court's jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's
failure to grant a taxpayer's request for abatement of interest.
Section 6404(g) provides in pertinent part:
SEC. 6404(g). Review of Denial of Request for
Abatement of Interest.--
(1) In general.--The Tax Court shall have
jurisdiction over any action brought by a taxpayer
who meets the requirements referred to in section
7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) to determine whether the
Secretary's failure to abate interest under this
section was an abuse of discretion, and may order
an abatement, if such action is brought within 180
days after the date of the mailing of the
Secretary's final determination not to abate such
interest.
(2) Special rules.--
(A) Date of mailing. Rules similar to
the rules of section 6213 shall apply for
purposes of determining the date of the mailing
referred to in paragraph (1).
Consistent with section 6404(g)(1), the Court's jurisdiction is
dependent upon a valid final determination letter and a timely
filed petition for review. See Rule 280(b); White v.
Commissioner, 109 T.C. 96, 98 (1997); Banat v. Commissioner, 109
- 5 -
T.C. 92, 95 (1997). In addition, the taxpayer must meet the
requirements of section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii). See Rule 280(b)(2).
The Commissioner's final determination letter "is a
prerequisite to the Court's jurisdiction and serves as a
taxpayer's 'ticket' to the Tax Court". Bourekis v. Commissioner,
110 T.C. 20, 26 (1998); see Kraft v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1997-476. Consistent with principles applied in deficiency cases
brought under section 6213(a), it is sufficient for
jurisdictional purposes if the Commissioner mails the final
determination letter to the taxpayer's "last known address".
See, e.g., Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 52 (1983).
Further, if a final determination letter is mailed to the
taxpayer's last known address, actual receipt of the letter is
immaterial. See, e.g., King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 679
(9th Cir. 1988), affg. 88 T.C. 1042 (1987). The taxpayer, in
turn, has 180 days from the date the final determination letter
is mailed to file a petition for review with the Court. See sec.
6404(g)(1).
There is no dispute in this case that respondent mailed the
final determination letter to petitioners on August 13, 1998. In
addition, petitioners do not contend that respondent failed to
mail the final determination letter to their last known address.
Accordingly, the 180-day filing period prescribed in section
6404(g)(1) expired on Tuesday, February 9, 1999, a date that was
- 6 -
not a legal holiday in the District of Columbia. However, the
petition was not mailed to the Court until February 15, 1999, and
was received and filed by the Court on February 17, 1999.
Because the petition was not timely filed, we must dismiss this
case for lack of jurisdiction. See Rule 280(b).
To reflect the foregoing,
An order will be entered
granting respondent's Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction.