Opinion
26246-21S
03-16-2022
Mazhar Ali & Ghazala Shaheen Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
On December 2, 2021, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground the petition was not filed timely as to the deficiency notice dated October 30, 2020, issued to petitioners for tax year 2018. On December 27, 2021, petitioners' Enrolled Agent Falak Huque filed a Response on their behalf to respondent's motion to dismiss.
The record reflects that respondent sent a notice of deficiency for 2018 by certified mail to petitioners at petitioners' last known address on October 30, 2020. The 90-day period under I.R.C. section 6213(a) for filing a timely Tax Court petition as to that deficiency notice expired on January 28, 2021. The petition, filed July 20, 2021, arrived at the Court in an envelope bearing a U.S. Postal Service 2-day postage paid label dated July 16, 2021--nearly six months after the statutory 90-day period expired. That petition was also signed and dated by each petitioner as of July 12, 2021.
Mr. Huque's Response does not dispute the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion to dismiss. Rather, Mr. Huque instead asks this Court to excuse petitioners' late filing of their petition in this case. Contrary to Mr. Huque's argument, however, the last date for petitioners to timely mail/timely file her Tax Court petition as to that deficiency notice expired on January 28, 2021. Petitioners failed to do so. The Court has no authority to extend the statutory period for filing a timely petition. Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). Accordingly, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. I.R.C. secs. 6213(a), 7502; Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982); Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed December 2, 2021, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.