Opinion
364-23
09-05-2023
STEPHEN J. LAMONTAGNE & ELAINE A. LAMONTAGNE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
This case for the redetermination of deficiencies is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed February 8, 2023. Petitioners object to the granting of the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
On August 12, 2022, respondent sent two Notices of Deficiency to petitioners' last known address. The Notices were sent by certified mail and determined deficiencies in petitioners' federal income tax for the taxable years 2018 and 2019, respectively. The Notices were addressed to petitioners at an address within the United States and informed them that the last date to file a petition with this Court was November 10, 2022.
On January 13, 2023, petitioners electronically filed the Petition to commence this case. The Petition seeks redetermination of the aforementioned deficiencies.
In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, as here, our jurisdiction depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. See §§ 6212 and 6213; Rule 13(a) and (c); Pugsley v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 691 (11th Cir. 1985); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); see also Allen v. Commissioner, 2022 WL 17825934 (11th Cir. 2022). Generally, a notice of deficiency will be deemed valid for this purpose if it is sent to the taxpayer's last known address by certified or registered mail. See § 6212(a) and (b); Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 807 (1987). In order to be timely, a petition must be filed within 90 days (or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States) of the date on which the Commissioner mails a valid notice of deficiency. See § 6213(a); Estate of Cerrito v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 896, 898 (1980). We have no authority to extend this 90-day period. See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 166-67 (holding that the 90-day period is a jurisdictional requirement and not subject to equitable tolling).
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Because the Notices of Deficiency were mailed to petitioners' last known address on August 12, 2022, the last date to file a petition with this Court as to those Notices was November 10, 2022. As noted above, the Petition in this case was electronically filed on January 13, 2023. Consequently, the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code, and this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Also pending before the Court in this case is petitioners' Motion for Relief from Judgment Due to Excusable Neglect, filed March 31, 2023. Among other things, petitioners argue therein that their failure to petition this Court within the 90-day period was inadvertent and that Rules 6(b)(1)(B) and 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide authority for this Court to grant petitioners relief by extending the applicable filing period. In view of our holding in Hallmark Research Collective, petitioners' arguments in the Motion (which we note mirror those set forth in petitioners' Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 2, 2023) are unavailing.
In 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. It is further
ORDERED that petitioners' Motion for Relief from Judgment Due to Excusable Neglect is moot.