Opinion
23921-22
10-04-2023
JOHN TRAHAN & SUSAN TRAHAN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Ronald L. Buch, Judge.
On October 2, 2023, the Commissioner filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction arguing that the Court must dismiss much of this case either because the notices that serve as jurisdictional prerequisites were never issued or the Petition was untimely as to the notices that were issued.
In their Petition filed October 25, 2022 (postmarked October 18, 2022), Mr. and Mrs. Trahan purport to challenge notices of deficiency, notices of determination concerning collection action, and notices of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claims for 2015 through 2020, inclusive.
According to the Commissioner, many of the purported notices were never issued, and as to those notices that were issued, the petition was untimely. Taking each type of notice in turn, the Commissioner alleges as follows:
1. Notices of Deficiency
1. None was issued to either Mr. or Mrs. Trahan for 2015, 2019, and 2020.
2. None was issued to Mrs. Trahan for 2017 and 2018.
3. A notice of deficiency was mailed to Mr. Trahan for 2016, 2017, and 2018 on October 13, 2020. Because a petition for redetermination of a deficiency generally must be filed with 90 days after the notice of deficiency is mailed (section 6213(a)), the Commissioner argues that the petition was untimely as to this notice, and thus we lack jurisdiction. See Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022).
4. A notice of deficiency was mailed to Mrs. Trahan for 2016 on October 13, 2020. The Commissioner argues that the petition was untimely as to this notice, and thus we lack jurisdiction.
2. Notices of Determination Concerning Collection Action
1. None was issued to Mrs. Trahan for 2015 through 2020, inclusive.
2. None was issued to Mr. Trahan for 2015, 2019, or 2020.
3. A notice of determination concerning collection action was mailed to Mr. Trahan for 2016, 2017, and 2018. Further, a decision letter concerning equivalent hearing was mailed to Mr. Trahan on March 20, 2023. The Commissioner does not ask that the Court take any action as to Mr. Trahan's collection case as to 2016 through 2018. 3. Notices of Final Determination for Disallowance of Interest Abatement
1. None was issued to Mrs. Trahan for 2015 through 2020, inclusive.
2. None was issued to Mr. Trahan for 2015 through 2020, inclusive.
Taken together, the Commissioner asks the Court to dismiss the deficiency case in its entirety either because no notice was issued, or no timely petition was filed. The Commissioner asks the Court to dismiss the interest abatement claims in their entirety because no notice was issued. And the Commissioner asks us to dismiss Mrs. Trahan's collection claims for as to all years and Mr. Trahan's collection claims as to 2015, 2019, and 2020, because no notice was issued. If the Commissioner's motion is granted, the only remaining issues in this case would be the collection action as to Mr. Trahan as to 2016, 2017, and 2018.
According to the Commissioner, he was unable to obtain the views of the Trahans' counsel before filing the Motion to Dismiss. To obtain those views, it is
ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a response to the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by October 22, 2023.