Cross v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 25415-90.
| Decision Date | 18 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 25415-90. |
| Citation | 98 T.C. No. 41,98 T.C. 613 |
| Parties | SILAS V. CROSS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
P resided on the Puyallup Indian Reservation which is bordered on all sides by the State of Washington. R mailed a notice of deficiency to at his address on the reservation, and P filed a petition in this Court 97 days thereafter. R has moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed. P argues that the reservation is an independent sovereign nation, and therefore the statutory notice of deficiency was addressed to him outside the United States within the meaning of sec. 6213(a), I.R.C., allowing 150 days in which to file a petition in this Court. HELD: The reservation is not outside the United States for purposes of sec. 6213(a). HELD, FURTHER, R's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction will be granted. Douglas D. Sulkosky, for petitioner.
John M. Altman, for respondent.
This case was assigned to Special Trial Judge Helen A. Buckley pursuant to section 7443A(b)(4) and Rules 180, 181, and 183. 1 The Court agrees with and adopts the opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below.
This matter is before us on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed.
On August 8, 1990, respondent sent to petitioner, by certified mail, a notice of deficiency regarding petitioner's Federal income taxes for 1977, 1978, and 1979. In the statutory notice respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to tax:
+--------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦Additions to tax ¦
+------+------------+------------------------------------¦
¦ ¦ ¦Sec. ¦Sec. ¦Sec. ¦
+------+------------+------------+---------------+-------¦
¦Year ¦Deficiency ¦6653(a)(1) ¦6653 (a)(2) 1 ¦6651 ¦
+------+------------+------------+---------------+-------¦
¦1977 ¦$107,919 ¦$5,396 ¦50% of the ¦$26,980¦
+------+------------+------------+---------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦interest due ¦ ¦
+------+------------+------------+---------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦on $107,919 ¦ ¦
+------+------------+------------+---------------+-------¦
¦1978 ¦66,618 ¦3,331 ¦50% of the ¦16,655 ¦
+------+------------+------------+---------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦interest due ¦ ¦
+------+------------+------------+---------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦on $66,618 ¦ ¦
+------+------------+------------+---------------+-------¦
¦1979 ¦89,952 ¦4,498 ¦50% of the ¦22,488 ¦
+------+------------+------------+---------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦interest due ¦ ¦
+------+------------+------------+---------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦on $89,952 ¦ ¦
+------+------------+------------+---------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------+
Petitioner, a Native American, is a member of the Puyallup Indian Nation. The notice of deficiency was mailed to and received by petitioner at his place of residence, 7522 Valley Avenue East, Puyallup, Washington 98371, which is located on the Puyallup Indian Reservation (sometimes hereafter the reservation). The reservation is geographically bounded on all sides by the State of Washington, and is therefore situated entirely within the mainland United States. On November 7, 1990, the 91st day after respondent mailed the notice of deficiency, petitioner sent his petition to this Court by certified mail. The petition was filed on November 13, 1990, which was 97 days after the mailing of the notice. Petitioner resided at the Puyallup Reservation in Washington State at the time he filed his petition in this Court.
Respondent contends that we lack jurisdiction over this matter and the case must be dismissed because the petition was not filed within the time required by section 6213(a). That section provides in pertinent part that “Within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed * * *, the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.”
Our jurisdiction is invoked only by the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency followed by the timely filing of a petition. Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989). No dispute exists over the validity of respondent's notice of deficiency. Thus, if petitioner untimely filed his petition we are without jurisdiction to hear the case. See Rule 13(c). The petition in this case was filed 97 days after the notice of deficiency was mailed.
Petitioner contends that the petition was timely filed pursuant to section 6213(a). His argument is novel. He maintains that the notice of deficiency was addressed to him outside the United States, and he therefore had 150 days in which to file his petition. In petitioner's view, the reservation is an independent sovereign nation and is therefore outside the United States within the meaning of section 6213(a).
On brief, petitioner presents a lengthy discussion of the treaty accord reached in 1854 between the United States and the Puyallup Indian Nation and what he views as legally significant events leading to and following the date of the treaty. He vehemently argues that under principles of international and real property law the lands reserved to the Puyallup Indian Nation are owned exclusively by it, that the reservation is an independent sovereign separate and apart from the United States, and that for purposes of applying section 6213(a) the reservation is therefore outside of the United States.
At this particular juncture of the proceedings we find it unnecessary to decide whether, or to what extend, the Puyallup Indian Reservation constitutes an independent sovereign nation. The reservation is unquestionably physically located wholly inside the boundaries of Washington State and thus the United States. It is not outside the United States within the meaning of section 6213(a).
The 150-day rule for persons outside the United States was added to the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 by section 168 of the Revenue Act of 1942, ch. 619, 56 Stat. 876. The congressional concern addressed by the legislative change is readily apparent from the following report of the Senate Finance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S.A. v. White
...Section 6050I's reporting requirement by the "foreign transaction exception" of Section 1.6050I-1(d)(4). Cf. Cross v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 98 T.C. 613, 615 (1992) (rejecting American Indian taxpayer's reliance on 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a), which grants "person[s] outside the United S......
-
Amsler v. Commissioner, Docket No. 28664-91.
...that, to maintain an action in this Court, there must be a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Cross v. Commissioner [Dec. 48,222], 98 T.C. 613, 615 (1992); Monge v. Commissioner [Dec. 45,827], 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Abeles v. Commissioner [Dec. 45,203], 91 T.C. 1019, 10......
-
Roberts v. Commissioner
...33 T.C. 667, 668 (1960) (Court reviewed). If there is no delayed receipt, the 150-day rule does not apply. See Cross v. Commissioner [Dec. 48,222], 98 T.C. 613, 616 (1992); Maekzad v. Commissioner [Dec. 37,963], 76 T.C. 963, 970 (1981); Levy v. Commissioner, supra; Lewy v. Commissioner, sup......
-
McGarvin v. Commissioner, Docket No. 6705-93.
...a timely filed petition, and that we must dismiss a case in which one or the other is not present. Sec. 6213(a); Cross v. Commissioner [Dec. 48,222], 98 T.C. 613, 615 (1992); Monge v. Commissioner [Dec. 45,827], 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Pietanza v. Commissioner [Dec. 45,576], 92 T.C. 729, 735......