Opinion
19764-22
02-07-2024
CAROLINE KING, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Zachary S. Fried, Special Trial Judge.
This case for the redetermination of a deficiency is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed November 10, 2022. Respondent's motion is based upon the grounds that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) sections 6213(a) or 7502. In support of the motion, respondent attached a copy of the certified mailing list, and the notice of deficiency (notice). Petitioner filed a response to the motion on February 24, 2023.
The certified mailing list evidences that the notice was sent to petitioner by certified mail on May 16, 2022. Pursuant to I.R.C. section 6213(a) and the notice, the last day for petitioner to file her petition with this Court was August 15, 2022. The Petition in this case was not filed with the Court until August 31, 2022. The Petition was received by the Court in an envelope bearing a U.S. Postal Service postmark of August 23, 2022.
The Tax Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction and may therefore only exercise jurisdiction to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). A taxpayer invoking this Court's jurisdiction bears the burden of affirmatively 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 deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a taxpayer outside of 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). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 n.4 (2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); 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).
Under certain circumstances, a timely mailed petition may be treated as though it were timely filed. See I.R.C. § 7502. In order for this 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. § 7502(a)(2).
In the present case, the time for filing a petition with this Court expired on August 15, 2022. However, the Petition was not filed nor mailed within that 90-day period. In her response, petitioner does not dispute the jurisdictional allegations in respondent's motion.
The record in this case establishes that the Petition was not timely filed and, accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. We have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 167; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). We note, however, that petitioner remains free to pursue an administrative resolution of her 2020 tax liability directly with the Internal Revenue Service.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed November 10, 2022, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the above-stated grounds.