Gray v. Commissioner
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14869
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Gray did not file timely returns or pay taxes for 2001–2004; IRS notified her in 2006 and she later filed returns but did not pay amounts due.
- Gray requested a Collections Due Process (CDP) hearing under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 to challenge liens, levies, and penalties.
- IRS issued two notices of determination approving liens/levies; Gray filed petitions in Tax Court more than 30 days after each notice.
- Tax Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely filing under § 6330(d)(1); Gray challenged the timeliness on appeal.
- Gray argued for a longer filing window (90 or 180 days) based on other statutory provisions; the court examined and rejected these arguments.
- Court’s holding: the 30-day limit under § 6330(d)(1) applies; no extended time limits were available here; Tax Court’s judgments are affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 6330(d)(1) 30-day limit governs petitions to Tax Court | Gray argues for a longer window (90/180 days) based on other provisions | IRS and Tax Court apply § 6330(d)(1) 30-day limit | Yes, the 30-day limit applies; petitions untimely; no extended window. |
| Whether Gray could use § 6213(a) 90-day deficiency period | Gray contends deficiency procedures apply because penalties contested tied to a deficiency | There was no deficiency or notice of deficiency; § 6213 inapplicable | No, § 6213(a) does not apply; no deficiency notice issued. |
| Whether § 6404(h)(1) 180-day abatement-of-interest provision could extend time | Gray could have used the 180-day limit if counsel argued for it | Court did not abuse discretion in denying extended time; no evidence of interest abatement sought at CDP | No abuse; 180-day limit not triggered; no extension. |
| Whether the Tax Court properly exercised docket-management discretion given pro se status | Pro se status warrants more time to obtain counsel | Docket-management discretion allowed timely rulings; no abuse shown | No abuse; court allowed supplemental briefs; substantial time elapsed to obtain counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. Comm’r, 24 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 1994) (deficiency procedures and time limits under § 6213 clarified)
- Shepherd v. Comm’r, 147 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 1998) (deficiency concept and jurisdictional prerequisites)
- Investment Research Assocs., Inc. v. Comm’r, 126 T.C. 183 (Tax Ct. 2006) (jurisdiction depends on timely filing of § 6330 petition)
- McCune v. Comm’r, 115 T.C. 114 (Tax Ct. 2000) (timeliness for petitions under tax procedures)
- Wilson v. Comm’r, 118 T.C. 537 (Tax Ct. 2002) (penalties vs. deficiencies in § 6665 context)
- Estate of Forgey v. Comm’r, 115 T.C. 142 (Tax Ct. 2000) (abstention of penalty-related abatement under timing)