Opinion
33075-21S
09-28-2023
BENITO R. ARENAS & ROCIO HERNANDEZ, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Ronald L. Buch Judge
This case was called at the Court's September 25, 2023, trial session in Los Angeles, California. Pending is the Court's Order to Show Cause served June 13, 2023, in which we ordered the parties to show cause why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Arenas and Ms. Hernandez did not respond. The Commissioner filed a response to the Court's order, arguing that the Court should dismiss this case because the petition was untimely. The Court again ordered a response from Mr. Arenas and Ms. Hernandez, providing them another opportunity to establish jurisdiction. Because Mr. Arenas and Ms. Hernandez failed to establish that we have jurisdiction, we will dismiss this case.
Background
On June 30, 2021, the Commissioner separately mailed copies of a notice of deficiency to Mr. Arenas and Ms. Hernandez adjusting their 2016 tax liability. Ninety days from that date was September 28, 2021, which was a Tuesday.
Mr. Arenas and Ms. Hernandez mailed a petition to the United States Tax Court. They sent their petition through the United States Postal Service by Priority Express mail. The envelope containing their petition bore a mailing label with the date October 1, 2021. The Court received the envelope on October 4, 2021. The petition did not include a copy of the notice of deficiency received by Mr. Arenas or Ms. Hernandez.
The Commissioner answered the case and provided his file copy of the notice of deficiency issued to Mr. Arenas and Ms. Hernandez. That file copy was undated. Also, the Commissioner's file copy of the notice of deficiency was blank in the space to note the "Last day to file petition with U.S. tax court."
The Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed.
Relying on the mailing date of the notice of deficiency, the Commissioner responded by arguing that the Court should dismiss this case and by providing proof of when he mailed the notices to Mr. Arenas and Ms. Hernandez. The Court did not receive a response from Mr. Arenas or Ms. Hernandez.
Discussion
Like other federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. As we recently held in a Court-reviewed opinion, our jurisdiction in a deficiency case depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held likewise. Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082, 1092 (9th Cir 2020) ("[W]e agree with the Tax Court that § 6213(a)'s time limits are jurisdictional.").
Mr. Arenas's and Ms. Hernandez's petition was untimely. The deadline to file a petition from a notice of deficiency generally is 90 days from the mailing of the notice to the taxpayer. Section 6213(a). A timely postmarked petition may be deemed timely. Section 7502(a)(1). But Mr. Arenas's and Ms. Hernandez's petition was postmarked more than 90 days after the mailing of the notice of deficiency. And although there are statutory exceptions to this 90-day rule, neither Mr. Arenas nor Ms. Hernandez argued or offered proof that any exception applies.
Conclusion
Because Mr. Arenas and Ms. Hernandez did not establish that their petition was filed within the statutorily prescribed time, we lack jurisdiction over their case and it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause is made absolute, and on the Court's own motion, this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.