Opinion
11972-20S
01-14-2022
Brady William Baltezore, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Diana L. Leyden Special Trial Judge
On January 26, 2021, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) for 2015 and 2017, the only years at issue, on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by I.R.C. section 6213(a) or section 7502. On February 16, 2021, petitioner filed a response to the motion to dismiss and objected. By order served January 7, 2022, the motion to dismiss was assigned to the undersigned for disposition. By Order dated February 25, 2021, the Court directed respondent to file a supplement by March 18, 2021, to respondent's motion to dismiss. On March 1, 2021, respondent filed a First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, attaching a copy of the Final Determination letter dated January 17, 2020, denying petitioner's request for innocent spouse relief under I.R.C. § 6015(f) for taxable years 2015 and 2017.
Respondent attached a copy of the certified mail form to the motion to dismiss, which proves that the Final Determination letter, denying petitioner's request for innocent spouse relief under I.R.C. § 6015(f) for taxable years 2015 and 2017, was sent to petitioner's last known address on January 17, 2020. Respondent asserts that the 90-day period for filing the petition with the Court ended on April 16, 2020, but recognizes that due to the closure of the Court the filing deadline was extended to July 15, 2020. The Court received petitioner's petition on September 28, 2020, 255 days after the date of the Final Determination. Respondent asserts that petitioner did not timely file the petition because it was not filed on or before July 15, 2020.
Petitioner objects to the motion to dismiss and asserts without proof that he timely mailed his petition to the Court before refiling his petition on September 22, 2020, after the extended deadline of July 15, 2020. Petitioner contends that he tried to confirm his petition was timely filed, by calling the Court. Due to the circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court was closed from March 19, 2020, through July 9, 2020. Petitioner contends that when he called the Court he was told by a Court employee that he should not refile his petition because of the Court's limited ability to process incoming mail during the Court's closure. Petitioner further contends that on September 21, 2020, he called the Court again and was advised to resend his petition, and was informed that the Court had not received his previously filed petition. However, petitioner did not provide adequate proof that he received the alleged information. Petitioner merely attached a printout allegedly from Verizon that shows a telephone number and date and time of a call that he made.
The Court need not address whether as petitioner appears to assert that he should be able to rely upon information he received from someone at the Court because he has not provided sufficient evidence of having received such alleged information. While the Court appreciates the efforts petitioner went through to ensure his petition was timely filed, without direct or physical evidence to prove the date of mailing of the petition was timely the Court lacks jurisdiction over his case.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, as supplemented, filed January 26, 2021, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.