Opinion
13069-20S
04-08-2022
GEORGE M. HARRIS & SUSAN K. HARRIS, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
On November 10, 2020, the Court received and filed the petition to commence this case, in which petitioners seek review with respect to a notice of deficiency issued for their 2017 tax year. On January 14, 2022, the parties filed a proposed stipulated decision.
Upon further review of the record, however, it appearing that the petition might not have been timely filed, on February 9, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing the parties to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On March 4, 2022, in response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code. Thereafter, on March 21, 2022, respondent filed another document titled motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which is actually a first supplement to respondent's motion to dismiss filed on March 4, 2022. The Court has received no response from petitioners.
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. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice of Procedure; Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). 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 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). 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. sec. 7502(a)(1). In order 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 date for timely filing a petition. See I.R.C. sec. 7502(a)(2).
The record in this case reflects that a notice of deficiency for the 2017 tax year was mailed to petitioners on February 10, 2020. Based on that mailing date, the last day petitioners could timely file a petition in this case was May 11, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, by IRS Notice 2020-03, 2020-18 I.R.B. 742, certain tax-related deadlines (including the deadline for filing a Tax Court petition) falling between April 1, 2020 and July 14, 2022, were extended to July 15, 2020. The petition, received by the Tax Court on November 10, 2020, was contained in an envelope sent to the Court by the IRS office in Austin, Texas. That envelope bears a postage meter date of October 31, 2020. Apparently, petitioners mailed their petition to the IRS, rather than to the Tax Court. Thus the timely mailing/timely filing provision of I.R.C. section 7502(a)(1), discussed above, does not apply in this case. The filing date of the petition, November 10, 2020, was after July 15, 2020, the last day the petition could be timely filed.
Accordingly, because the petition was not timely filed, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, filed March 21, 2022, is recharacterized as a first supplement to motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause is discharged. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, as supplemented, is granted in that this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that the parties' proposed stipulated decision, filed January 14, 2022, is stricken from the Court's record in this case.