Opinion
2006-23
05-08-2023
GERAL GIBSON & FAYET DOMBROVSKE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On April 7, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed. Petitioners filed a Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on April 27, 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 2020 on October 3, 2022. The period for filing a timely petition with the Court under IRC section 6213(a) expired on January 3, 2023. The petition was filed with the Court on January 17, 2022, arriving in an envelope bearing a postmark of January 6, 2023--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 Rsch. 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 Rsch. Collective, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). The petition in this case was not timely filed and we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. However, although petitioners cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioners are free to pursue an administrative resolution of petitioners' 2020 tax liability directly with the IRS.
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.