Opinion
7479-24S
07-11-2024
ROBERT DICKERSON & GLORIA MAE DICKERSON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
Currently pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss), filed July 2, 2024, on the grounds that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On July 8, 2024, petitioners filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
The record reflects that a notice of deficiency for petitioners' 2021 tax year was sent by certified mail to petitioners' last known address (the same address used by petitioners when filing their Petition) on November 27, 2023. The notice of deficiency stated that the last day to file a petition with the Tax Court was February 26, 2024. The Petition to commence this case was electronically filed May 11, 2024.
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 redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2020); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); see Sanders v. Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 161 T.C., slip op. at 7-8 (Nov. 2, 2023) (holding that the Court will continue treating the deficiency deadline as jurisdictional in cases appealable to jurisdictions outside the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit). In this regard, and as relevant here, 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 a valid notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). The notice of deficiency is sufficient if mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. I.R.C. § 6212(b). Absent clear and concise notification to the IRS of a different address, a taxpayer's last known address is the address appearing on the taxpayer's most recently filed and properly processed tax return. Treas. Reg. § 301.6212-2(a); King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 1988), aff'g 88 T.C. 1042 (1987).
Here, based on the notice of deficiency's mailing date of November 27, 2023, the 90-day period to timely file a Tax Court petition expired on February 26, 2024. Thus the Petition in this case--electronically filed on May 11, 2024--was not timely filed.
In their objection to the motion to dismiss, petitioners concede that their Petition was late and explain the reasons for the late filing. Otherwise, however, petitioners do not challenge any of the facts relied upon by respondent in support of the motion to dismiss, The record establishes that the Petition in this case was not timely filed, and the Court is therefore obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. While we are sympathetic to petitioners' circumstances, we have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. at 167; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, although petitioners may not prosecute this case in this Court, petitioners may continue to pursue an administrative resolution of their 2021 tax liability directly with the Internal Revenue Service. Another remedy potentially available to petitioners, if feasible, is to pay the determined amounts, file a claim for refund with the IRS, and then (if the claim is denied or not acted on for six months), bring a suit for refund in the appropriate Federal district court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 n.5 (1970).
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by Internal Revenue Code section 6213(a).