Opinion
1349-24S
05-13-2024
AMBER GILLIAM, Petitioner 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, filed March 27, 2024, on the grounds that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On April 19, 2024, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
The record reflects that a notice of deficiency for petitioner's 2021 tax year was sent by certified mail to petitioner's last known address on October 6, 2023. The Petition to commence this case was electronically filed on January 26, 2024.
Like all federal courts, the Tax 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. Patmon & Young Pro. Corp. v. Commissioner, 55 F.3d 216 (6th Cir. 1995), aff'g T.C. Memo. 1993-143; 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). The taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the notice of deficiency was not sent to the taxpayer's last known address. Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 808 (1987). The statute does not require that respondent prove delivery or actual receipt of the notice of deficiency. See Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 33 (1989).
Based on the notice of deficiency's mailing date of October 6, 2023, the 90-day period in which to file a Petition with the Tax Court expired on January 4, 2024. As discussed above, the Petition was electronically filed on January 26, 2024.
In her objection to the motion to dismiss, petitioner argues that this case should not be dismissed because she timely provided to the IRS all the documentation requested. However, this Court is separate and independent from the IRS. It is well settled that continued interaction with the IRS after receiving a notice of deficiency does not serve to extend the time to timely file a petition with the Tax Court.
Here, the record establishes that the Petition was not timely filed, and the Court is therefore obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. While we are sympathetic to petitioner's circumstances, we have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, although petitioner may not prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may continue to pursue an administrative resolution of the 2021 tax liability directly with the IRS. Also, another remedy potentially available to petitioner, 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 I.R.C. section 6213(a).