Opinion
5302-21
04-19-2023
STEVE HSING, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On August 18, 2021, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed with respect to tax year 2018. Respondent attached to the motion a copy of the certified mail list as evidence of the fact that the notice of deficiency was sent to petitioner by certified mail on November 2, 2020.
The petition was filed on February 16, 2021, which date is 106 days after the date the notice of deficiency for tax year 2018 was mailed to petitioner. The petition was received by the Court in an envelope bearing a United States Postal Service postmark of February 9, 2021, which date is 99 days after the date the notice of deficiency for tax year 2018 was mailed to petitioner. Attached to the petition is a copy of the deficiency notice issued for 2018, which states that the last day for filing a timely Tax Court petition as to that notice would expire on February 1, 2021.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. This Court's jurisdiction to determine a deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a) and (c); 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). In this regard, I.R.C. section 6213(a) provides that the petition must be filed with the Court 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). The Court has no authority to extend this 90 day (or 150 day) period. Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960).
In the present case, the time for filing a petition with this Court expired on February 1, 2021. However, the petition was not filed within that 90 day period.
On September 23, 2021, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. On February 2, 2023, petitioner filed a supplement to his objection. In his objection, as supplemented, petitioner asserts that he was delayed by COVID, had difficulty getting the records, moved to San Diego, and argues the merits of his case. Petitioner attached to his supplement a partial copy of his lease dated July 28, 2021. In addition, on June 15, 2021, petitioner filed a First Amended Petition with a returned address that is the same address to which respondent sent the notice of deficiency on November 2, 2020.
While the Court is sympathetic to petitioner's situation, governing law recognizes no exceptions for good cause or similar grounds that would allow him to proceed in this judicial forum. Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256 (1972). Accordingly, since the petition was not filed within the required 90 day period, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The fact that the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction does not preclude the parties from administratively resolving the deficiency issues if they are able to do so. In addition, if financially feasible, petitioner may pay the tax, file a claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service, and if the claim is denied, sue for a refund in Federal district court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 (1970).
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.