Haddix v. Commissioner
665 F. App'x 378
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- In January 2013 the IRS issued notices of intent to levy; the Haddixes timely requested a collections due process hearing and received notices of determination dated July 16, 2013, advising a 30‑day Tax Court petition deadline (August 15, 2013).
- The Haddixes signed a Tax Court petition dated August 15, 2013; the petition arrived at the Tax Court in an envelope bearing a mailing‑label “date of sale” of August 16, 2013 and was received on August 23, 2013.
- The Commissioner moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the petition was not mailed by the jurisdictional deadline and that the label’s August 16 date was a USPS postmark; the Commissioner also contended the Haddixes failed to meet their burden to prove timely mailing.
- The Haddixes submitted a bank statement showing a postal charge posted August 16, a sworn declaration claiming they mailed on August 14–15, and a USPS employee email denying that a court clerk’s notation was an official postmark.
- At a hearing the USPS witness testified the August 16 date was a valid USPS postmark and that USPS machines cannot print a date later than the sale date; the Tax Court found the Haddixes failed to prove timely mailing and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Haddixes also sought subpoenas for witnesses related to a prior criminal prosecution and sanctions against the Commissioner; the Tax Court quashed the subpoenas and denied sanctions. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal, dismissed the subpoena appeal as moot, and affirmed denial of sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Haddix(es) Argument | Commissioner Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Tax Court petition | Petition was mailed on or before Aug 15; mailing label was partially "blacked out" and not a USPS postmark | Label shows Aug 16 sale/postmark; Haddixes failed to prove timely mailing | Tax Court not clearly erroneous; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed |
| Validity of USPS postmark evidence | Court should not rely on label/postmark; Haddixes offered bank posting and declarations | USPS testimony and label establish Aug 16 mailing; machines cannot print future dates | Court credited USPS testimony and bank posting; Haddixes failed to meet burden |
| Quashing of subpoenas | Subpoenas sought evidence of financial hardship; quash motions relied on alleged untruths without letting subpoenaed witnesses rebut | Subpoenaed witnesses showed subpoenas unrelated to merits or otherwise objectionable | Moot — appeal dismissed because case dismissal leaves no trial where subpoenas would be used |
| Request for sanctions | Commissioner’s conduct warranted sanctions to compensate Haddixes’ costs | Sanctions not justified; Haddixes did not identify sanction authority and claims lacked merit | Tax Court did not abuse discretion in denying sanctions; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 748 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 2014) (pro se briefs liberally construed)
- Terrell v. Comm’r, 625 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Tax Court reviewed like district court decisions)
- United States ex rel. Branch Consultants v. Allstate Ins. Co., 560 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2009) (clear‑error standard explained)
- Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131 (1992) (courts retain sanction power even after dismissal for lack of jurisdiction)