Opinion
11356-20
01-04-2022
Erik D. Poulin & Julie A. Crawford-Poulin Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
On August 10, 2020, the Court received from petitioners and filed the petition to commence this case, in which petitioners seek review of a notice of deficiency, dated August 12, 2019, issued to them for their 2016 tax year. On November 16, 2020, 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. On January 28, 2021, petitioners filed an Objection To Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
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). When a notice of deficiency is mailed prior to the date shown on that notice, the taxpayer may use the date of the notice in determining the last date to file a petition. Loyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-172. 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). If the postmark is missing or illegible, a taxpayer may present extrinsic evidence to prove the date of mailing. See Anderson v. U.S., 966 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1992); Mason v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 354 (1977). The notice of deficiency is sufficient if mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. I.R.C. sec. 6212(b). The statute does not require that respondent prove delivery or actual receipt of the notice of deficiency. See Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 33 (1989).
The record in this case reflects that a notice of deficiency for tax year 2016 was sent to petitioners' last known address by certified mail on August 12, 2019. Based on that mailing date, the last day to timely file a petition with the Court was November 12, 2019. As discussed above, the Court received and filed the petition to commence this case on August 10, 2020. The petition was received in an envelope bearing a postmeter mark date of August 3, 2020. Both the filing and mailing dates are after the last day petitioners could timely file a petition with respect to the notice of deficiency issued to them for tax year 2016.
The petition in this case states: "Petitioner[s] previously attempted to request a hearing in U.S. Tax Court pro se, but did not send in the $60 application fee. As a result, their petition was not processed. Petitioners ask that the Court hear their case, despite the request being made out of time." Petitioners essentially make the same points in their objection to respondent's motion to dismiss. In their objection, they assert that they previously filed a petition prior to the deadline of November 12, 2019, and suggest that their first petition either was not received by the Court or was not processed because they failed to submit the Court's $60.00 filing fee. Based on that claim, petitioners request that the Court "hear their Petition out of time."
Petitioners, however, have provided no substantiation for their claim that they previously submitted a petition to the Court prior to the last day to do so. Additionally, while the Court has diligently searched its records for any prior petition received from petitioners, the Court has no record of having received such a petition from petitioners. If any petition had been received, with or without payment of the Court's filing fee, that petition would have been filed to protect the taxpayers' interests to the extent possible.
The record establishes that the petition in this case was not timely filed, and we have no authority to extend the period for timely filing the 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). However, although petitioners may not prosecute this case in the Tax Court, petitioners may continue to pursue administrative resolution of the 2016 tax liability directly with the IRS, possibly by way of a request for audit reconsideration. Another remedy available potentially available to petitioners, if feasible, is to pay the determined amounts, then file a claim for refund with the IRS. If the claim is denied or not acted on for six months, petitioners may file a suit for refund in the appropriate Federal district court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 n.5 (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.