Opinion
21156-21S
12-01-2022
SARA ALLENE BOWMAN & ESTATE OF JULIAN MICHAEL BOWMAN, DECEASED, SARA A. BOWMAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Adam B. Landy Special Trial Judge
A petition commencing this case was filed on June 11, 2021. Petitioners seek review of the notice of deficiency (notice) dated March 4, 2021, and issued to them for 2017. Attached to the petition is a copy of that notice, which states the last day for filing a timely Tax Court petition as to that notice would expire on June 2, 2021. The petition arrived at the Court on June 11, 2021, in a USPS Priority Mail Express Saver envelope postmarked June 10, 2021.
The Court issued an Order to Show Cause served on May 19, 2022, seeking the parties' positions as to why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground the petition was not timely filed. On May 23, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Although the Court directed petitioners to file a response to the May 19, 2022, Order to Show Cause, petitioners have failed to do so.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In addition, jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a taxpayer invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the taxpayer's case. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960).
In a case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, 1 159 T.C. No. 6 (Nov. 29, 2022); Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982). In this regard, Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6213(a) provides that the petition must be filed with the Court within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day).
When a notice of deficiency is mailed prior to the date shown on that notice, the taxpayer may use the date of the notice in determining the last date to file a petition. Loyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-172. If a petition is timely mailed and properly addressed to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C., it will be considered timely filed. See I.R.C. § 7502(a)(1). For the timely mailing/timely filing provision to apply, the envelope containing the petition must bear a postmark with a date that is on or before the last day for timely filing a petition. See I.R.C. § 7502(a)(2).
The record reflects that respondent mailed a notice of deficiency for 2017 on March 4, 2021. The 90-day period for filing a timely petition with the Court expired on June 2, 2021, which date was not a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia. The Court only has jurisdiction if the petition was mailed using the U.S. Postal Service within the 90-day period beginning March 4, 2021 and ending June 2, 2021. See I.R.C. § 6213(a). The petition arrived at the Court in an envelope with a postmark of June 10, 2021. The Court concludes that petitioners did not timely file a petition in this case and therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiency for tax year 2017.
Accordingly, upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order To Show Cause, issued on May 19, 2022, is hereby discharged. It is further
ORDERED that, respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed May 23, 2022, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground the petition was not timely filed. 2