Opinion
1908-22S
04-25-2023
VERNIE T. BUERKLE & DONNA M. BUERKLE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
On April 5, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed. Petitioners filed an Objection on March 2, 2023, but did not dispute the jurisdictional allegations made in respondent's motion. The record reflects that respondent mailed a notice of deficiency to petitioners for the taxable year 2018 on July 26, 2021. The period for filing a timely petition with the Court under IRC section 6213(a) expired on October 25, 2021. The petition was filed with the Court on January 12, 2022, arriving in an envelope bearing a postmark of December 28, 2021--a date beyond the timely filing period.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise that jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). The Court has no authority to extend the statutory period for filing a timely petition in response to a notice of deficiency. Hallmark Research Collective, supra; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). The fact that petitioners may have received erroneous advice does not change the result. The petition in this case was not timely filed and we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.