Opinion
2250-24
03-28-2024
MICHELLE D. JACKSON, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISIC TION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
The petition underlying the above-docketed proceeding was filed on February 9, 2024, and taxable year 2018 was indicated as the period in contention. No notices of deficiency or determination issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were attached to the petition. The statements in the petition centered primarily on complaints regarding failure by the IRS properly to respond to efforts by petitioner to provide information and to address the 2018 tax matters.
On March 11, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the grounds: (1) That the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) with respect to a notice of deficiency for taxable year 2018; and (2) no notice of determination to form the basis for a petition to this Court had been sent to petitioner with respect to taxable year 2018, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner's such tax year that would confer jurisdiction on the Court as of the time the petition herein was filed. Attached to the motion were copies of a notice of deficiency and the corresponding certified mail list (U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Form 3877), as evidence of the fact that such notice of deficiency for the taxable year 2018, dated April 19, 2021, had been sent to petitioner by certified mail on April 19, 2021.
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 a case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the issuance by the Commissioner of a valid notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983). The jurisdiction of the Court in a deficiency case also depends in part on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082, 1092 (9th Cir. 2020); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982); 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, section 6213(a), I.R.C., 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 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. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. at 166-67; Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, a petition shall be treated as timely filed if it is filed on or before the last date specified in such notice for the filing of a Tax Court petition, a provision which becomes relevant where that date is later than the date computed with reference to the mailing date. Sec. 6213(a), I.R.C. Likewise, if the conditions of section 7502, I.R.C., are satisfied, a petition which is timely mailed may be treated as having been timely filed.
A petition is ordinarily "filed" when it is received by the Tax Court in Washington, D.C. See, e.g., Leventis v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 353, 354 (1968). Although the Court may sit at any place within the United States, its principal office, its mailing address, and its Clerk's office are in the District of Columbia. Sec. 7445, I.R.C.; Rule 10, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. And a document that is electronically filed with the Court is filed when it is received by the Court as determined in reference to where the Court is located. Nutt v. Commissioner, No. 15959-22, 160 T.C. (May 2, 2023).
Similarly, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination concerning collection action under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C., depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C. Secs. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), I.R.C.; Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (2000). A condition precedent to the issuance of a notice of determination is the requirement that a taxpayer have requested a hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals in reference to an underlying Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320, Final Notice of Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (or the equivalent Notice CP90, Intent to seize your assets and notice of your right to a hearing, depending on the version of the form used), or analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under section 6330(f), I.R.C. (e.g., a Notice of Levy on Your State Tax Refund and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing).
In a case based upon failure of the IRS to abate interest, jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Sec. 6404(h), I.R.C.; Rule 280(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Again, if the conditions of section 7502, I.R.C., are satisfied, a petition which is timely mailed may be treated as having been timely filed. Jurisdiction under section 6404(h), I.R.C., also rests in part on issuance of a determination by the IRS under that section or the failure by the IRS to issue such a determination within 180 days of the filing of a claim for interest abatement. More specifically, section 6404(h), I.R.C., provides:
(1) In general.--The Tax Court shall have jurisdiction over any action brought by a taxpayer who meets the requirements referred to in section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) to determine whether the Secretary's failure to abate interest under this section was an abuse of discretion, and may order an abatement if such action is brought--
(A) at any time after the earlier of--
(i) the date of the mailing of the Secretary's final determination not to abate such interest, or
(ii) the date which is 180 days after the date of the filing with the Secretary (in such form as the Secretary may prescribe) of a claim for abatement under this section, and
(B) not later than the date with is 180 days after the date described in subparagraph (A)(i).
Other types of IRS notice which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, include a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief From Joint and Several Liability, a Notice of Determination of Worker Classification, Notice of Certification of Your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt to the State Department, or a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Whistleblower Action. No pertinent claims involving section 6015, 7436, 7345, or 7623, I.R.C., respectively, have been implicated here. Likewise absent is any suggestion that the perquisites have been met to support one of the statutorily described declaratory judgment actions that may be undertaken by the Court.
Petitioner was served with a copy of respondent's motion to dismiss and on March 25 and 26, 2024, filed an objection and multiple supplements. Therein, petitioner did not directly counter the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion regarding timeliness and lack of relevant notices and did not allege that petitioner had filed with the Tax Court before the statutory deadline as to the 2018 notice of deficiency. Instead, the response seemed to focus largely on petitioner's long-running efforts to resolve the 2018 tax matters administratively with the IRS and petitioner's frustrations with the agency. To wit, the objection, as supplemented, comprised voluminous copies of correspondence petitioner had received from the IRS dating from November 16, 2020, through January 31, 2024. The materials bore extensive hand-written annotations, and those additions, as well as the content of the letters and notices, made it abundantly clear that petitioner had been reaching out to the agency for several years both in writing and by phone, to the point of exasperation. Also included were materials relating more substantively to settlement payments received by petitioner. The annotations further included various assertions that petitioner had never received the notice of deficiency for 2018.
On this record, then, the Court considers whether jurisdiction has been established with respect to either a deficiency, collection, or abatement proceeding for 2018. As regards a deficiency case, and as previously noted, the initial petition herein was filed with the Court on February 9, 2024, which date is 1,026 days after the date of the notice of deficiency for 2018 issued to petitioner. The petition had been filed electronically on that February 9, 2024, date, received at 5:15 p.m., and an address in Los Angeles, California, was provided as the mailing address. The petition clearly was not filed or mailed within 90 days of the date of the notice mailed to petitioner, i.e., the petition was not filed or sent to the Court on or before the July 19, 2021, deadline. Moreover, petitioner has made no claim that petitioner filed a timely Tax Court petition in response to this deficiency notice.
Rather, petitioner's objection and other documents in the record show that before and after receiving the notice of deficiency petitioner has endeavored to communicate with and to submit information to, and to seek information from, the IRS. The law is well settled, however, that once a notice of deficiency has been issued, further administrative contact or consideration does not alter or suspend the running of the 90-day period. Even confusing IRS responses or correspondence during the administrative process cannot override the clearly stated deadline in the statutory notice of deficiency. Such confusion is not uncommon given that the IRS frequently treats as separate processes or proceedings what taxpayers view as a single dispute. Taxpayers not infrequently have also conflated this Court with an IRS unit, but the IRS is a completely separate and independent entity from the Tax Court. In a similar vein, audit reconsideration is unrelated to, and has no bearing on, rights to petition the Tax Court.
Although section 7502, I.R.C., allows a timely mailed petition to be treated as timely filed, that section mandates that the envelope bearing the petition be "properly addressed to the agency, officer, or office with which the document is required to be filed.". Sec. 7502(a)(2)(B), I.R.C. A petition seeking redetermination of a deficiency must be filed with this Court and not the IRS. Sec. 6213(a), I.R.C. Hence, the mailing (or faxing) of a petition, correspondence, return, or other documentation to the IRS is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256 (1972). The statute is clear, and this Court must follow it. Estate of Cerrito v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 896 (1980). The Court would also note that a notice of deficiency issued to a taxpayer states on its face the last day to petition the Tax Court (not the IRS) and provides expressly in multiple places that the filing period extends 90 days from the date of the letter. The first pages of the notice are likewise explicit in providing that petitions must be filed with the U.S. Tax Court and in giving the Court's address as "400 Second Street, NW, Washington, DC 20217". With these definitive rules regarding the inefficacy of written correspondence to the IRS, it is clear that efforts to contact the IRS by phone or fax can offer no greater protection.
Additionally, to the extent that petitioner's statements regarding non-receipt might be interpreted as a claim that the notice of deficiency was not properly sent, a notice of deficiency is sufficient if it is mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. See sec. 6212(b)(1), I.R.C. In King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 1988), aff'g 88 T.C. 1042 (1987), the Court of Appeals stated that by "establishing a presumption that the taxpayer's 'last known address' is the address on his/her most recent return, we provide a clear starting point for the IRS's determination. A notice of deficiency mailed to that address will be sufficient, unless the taxpayer subsequently communicates 'clear and concise' notice of a change of address." See also sec. 301.6212-2(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs. In such circumstances, the 90-day period prescribed in section 6213(a), I.R.C., is computed by reference to the date the notice of deficiency "is mailed" by certified mail, not the date of attempted delivery, availability, or actual receipt, except in the narrow circumstances where the notice itself sets forth a later, and thus controlling, last date to petition the Tax Court.
Respondent bears the burden of proving proper mailing of the notice of deficiency by competent and persuasive evidence. Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82, 90 (1990). Such burden requires respondent to introduce evidence showing that the notice was properly delivered to the USPS for mailing. Cataldo v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 522, 524 (1973), aff'd, 499 F.2d 550 (2d Cir. 1974). In particular, as this Court has stated: "A Form 3877 reflecting Postal Service receipt represents direct documentary evidence of the date and the fact of mailing." Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. at 90. If the existence of the notice of deficiency is undisputed, a properly completed Form 3877 is alone sufficient to establish proper mailing, but even a Form 3877 with defects is probative and may be combined with additional evidence to meet respondent's burden. See O'Rourke v. United States, 587 F.3d 537, 540-542 (2d Cir. 2009); Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. at 91-92; Portwine v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-29, aff'd, 668 Fed.Appx. 838 (10th Cir. 2016).
It is well established in the context of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction that once respondent has established the fact and date of the mailing of a notice of deficiency, the burden rests on the taxpayer to prove that the notice was not sent to his or her last known address. See, e.g., Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 808 (1987); Clevenger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-37, aff'd without published opinion, 176 F.3d 482 (9th Cir. 1999). Stated otherwise, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing that clear and concise notice of a change of address was provided to the IRS. See, e.g., Mollett v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 618, 624-625 (1984), aff'd without published opinion, 757 F.2d 286 (11th Cir. 1985); Hammann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-361. In general, notification of a change of address provided by the taxpayer to third parties including payors and other government agencies, rather than to the IRS, is insufficient to satisfy the notice requirement quoted above. Sec. 301.6212-2(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. However, an exception exists in specified circumstances where a new address has been communicated to the USPS. Sec. 301.6212-2(b)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Regulations provide that the IRS will update taxpayer addresses by referring to data accumulated and maintained in the USPS National Change of Address (NCOA) database. Id.
Here, the Court is satisfied that the combination of evidence proffered is sufficient to establish proper mailing. The existence of the notice has been clearly demonstrated, respondent has supplied a properly postmarked USPS Form 3877, and the record is devoid of any evidence or claim to suggest that petitioner at any relevant time prior to the April 2021 mailing gave the IRS "clear and concise" notice of any address other than that used. Nor is there any suggestion that the exception premised on the NCOA database should alter the result in the instant scenario. Significantly, the address on the notice of deficiency is the same as that reflected as petitioner's the address of record in this case, and no different address has ever been identified. Furthermore even problems with delivery by the USPS do not override or otherwise invalidate proper mailing by the IRS.
As to a collection or interest abatement case, respondent's jurisdictional allegations likewise stand unrebutted. Petitioner has at no time established that a notice of determination for 2018 under section 6320, 6330, and/or 6404, I.R.C., was issued. Moreover, there has been no suggestion or indication that petitioner at any relevant time submitted to the IRS a proper claim for interest abatement. Instead, it appears that petitioner may be attempting to rely on other IRS correspondence as the equivalent of a notice of determination. Such is contrary to the law described above.
Thus, the record at this juncture suggests that petitioner may have sought the assistance of the Court after having become frustrated with administrative actions by the IRS and any attempts to work with the agency but that the petition here was not based upon or instigated by a specific IRS notice expressly providing petitioner with the right to contest a particular IRS determination in this Court. Suffice it to say that no IRS communication supplied or mentioned by petitioner to date (including, e.g., Notices CP2000, CP503, CP49, Letters 4314C, 916C, 105C, etc.), constitutes, or can substitute for, a notice of deficiency under section 6212, I.R.C., or a notice of determination issued pursuant to sections 6320 and/or 6330, I.R.C, or any other of the narrow class of specified determinations by the IRS that can open the door to the Tax Court, as of the date the petition was filed. Moreover, the expansive view of the Court's jurisdiction intimated in the objection, as supplemented, clearly exceeds the bounds of the limited jurisdiction detailed above. Absent a specific statutory grant to the Court to address a particular notice or scenario, the Court has no general jurisdiction to consider and redress complaints simply because they may pertain to taxes. Stated otherwise, the Court is simply without authority to consider the propriety of any IRS activity (or inactivity) in absence of a determination to petitioner within the meaning of the statutes discussed herein and a timely petition.
In conclusion, the Court has no authority to extend that period provided by law for filing a petition "whatever the equities of a particular case may be and regardless of the cause for its not being filed within the required period." Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). As a Court of limited jurisdiction, the Court is simply unable to offer any remedy or assistance when a petition is filed late. Unfortunately, governing law recognizes no reasonable cause or other applicable exception to the statutory deadline. Accordingly, since petitioner has failed to establish that the petition was mailed or filed within the required period with respect to the notice of deficiency for 2018, and has failed to establish the existence of any other determination by the IRS that could support this litigation, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court would, however, encourage petitioner, despite the frustration, to consider continuing to work administratively through the IRS, which, being entirely separate from the Tax Court, may yet be able to offer alternative avenues for relief.
In conclusion then, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioner's situation and understands the challenges of the circumstances faced and the good faith efforts made, the Court on the present record lacks jurisdiction in this case to review any action (or inaction) by respondent in regard to petitioner's taxes. Congress has granted the Tax Court no authority to afford any remedy in the circumstances evidenced by this proceeding, regardless of the merits of petitioner's complaints.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.