Opinion
25033-21L
09-07-2023
DEALERS AUTO AUCTION OF SOUTHWEST, LLC Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Courtney D. Jones Judge
In this collection due process case, petitioner Dealers Auto Auction of Southwest, LLC, asks us to review a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions under IRC Sections 6320 or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code, issued by the Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals on June 17, 2021 (the Notice). The Notice was addressed to petitioner at an address in Phoenix, Arizona.
The Petition was filed on July 7, 2021. Therein, petitioner alleged that it is a Colorado limited liability company and confirmed that its mailing address is the Phoenix, Arizona address "as indicated" on the Notice. Respondent's Answer, filed November 23, 2021 (Doc. 6), admitted these allegations.
On April 26, 2023, the Court served the parties with a notice of trial, which set the case for trial on the calendar of the Court's September 11, 2023, trial session in Denver, Colorado. On June 9, 2023, respondent filed the administrative record with a certificate as to its genuineness (Doc. 16). See Rule 93. On August 31, 2023, the parties filed a First Stipulation of Facts (Doc. 21). Therein, they stipulated that petitioner's principal place of business was in Phoenix, Arizona when the petition was filed.
On the same day that the Petition was filed, petitioner filed a request that trial be held in Denver, Colorado (Doc. 2).
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Section 7482(b)(1)(G)(ii) provides that in the case of a petition under section 6230 or 6330, the decision of the Tax Court will be reviewed by the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which is located the principal place of business or principal office of the petitioner. Because petitioner's principal place of business is in Phoenix, Arizona, appeal of this case would lie with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
See also section 7482(b)(2), providing that the Secretary and the taxpayer may designate by stipulation in writing that the decision of the Tax Court may be reviewed by any United States Court of Appeals.
The Ninth Circuit has concluded that its review - and, hence, this Court's review - is limited to the administrative record for collection due process cases. See Keller v. Commissioner, 568 F.3d 710, 718 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'g in part T.C. Memo. 2006-166, and aff'g in part, vacating in part decisions in related cases. Because this case is appealable to the Ninth Circuit, we follow that precedent. Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 757 (1970), aff'd, 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971). See Laidlaw's Harley Davidson Sales, Inc. v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2023-90, n. 2).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that this case is stricken from the above-referenced trial session and the parties are excused from appearing at the calendar call on September 11, 2023. It is further
ORDERED that jurisdiction of this case is retained by the undersigned. It is further
ORDERED that, on or before October 8, 2023, the parties shall file a status report (jointly if possible, otherwise separately), to inform the Court of the then-present status of this case.