Opinion
13685-20
07-29-2022
GINA M. LEDESMA & JULLIAN LEDESMA, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Lewis R. Carluzzo Chief Special Trial Judge
Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the hearing in the above case before Chief Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Chicago, Illinois, on June 28, 2022, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate Order and Decision will be entered.
Bench Opinion
Lewis R. Carluzzo, Judge
June 28, 2022
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 (bench opinion).
Section references contained in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. Except as provided in Rule 152(c), this bench opinion shall not be cited as authority.
This case for the redetermination of a deficiency is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, filed February 5, 2021. According to respondent's motion, the petition was neither mailed nor filed within the period prescribed by section 6213(a). According to petitioners' objection, filed February 26, 2021, the petition should be treated as timely filed because it was timely mailed. See section 7502. By order served April 4, 2022, respondent's motion was assigned to me for disposition.
Respondents motion was heard on June 27, 2022, during the Chicago, Illinois, trial session that began on that date. Justyna W. Jozwik appeared on behalf of respondent and argued in support of the motion. Robert W. Maucker appeared on behalf of petitioners and opposed the motion.
The relevant facts and controlling law are well known to the parties and need not be discussed in this bench opinion.
The dispute between the parties centers exclusively on the date the petition was mailed. At the hearing direct evidence of mailing was presented in the form of testimony of the individual who mailed the petition and the records of the law firm that represented petitioners at the time. We understand respondent's reluctance to accept petitioners' claim to have timely mailed the petition given the length of time between the date petitioners claim the petition was mailed and the date the petition was received and filed by the Court, but we find the evidence presented by petitioners at the hearing to be credible. That being so, we find that the petition was mailed as petitioners claim it was and consequently the petition is treated as timely filed. It follows that respondent's motion will be denied and an appropriate order will be issued to that end.
This concludes the Court's bench opinion in this matter. (Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.)