Opinion
11521-22S
06-26-2023
REWARD REYES & JEIDY MOLINA, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
Currently pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to 2018 (motion to dismiss), filed September 8, 2022, on the grounds that, as to petitioner's 2018 tax year, the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On September 13, 2022, petitioners filed a letter in opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss.
The record reflects that, as to petitioners' 2018 tax year, a notice of deficiency was sent by certified mail to petitioners' last known address on February 8, 2022. That notice of deficiency stated that the last day to file a petition with the Tax Court was May 9, 2022. A notice of deficiency for petitioners' 2019 tax year was issued at a later date. Petitioners electronically filed the petition to commence this case on May 23, 2022, seeking to challenge the 2018 notice of deficiency, as well as the notice of deficiency issued for their 2019 tax year. Respondent's motion to dismiss does not seek the dismissal of so much of this case relating to petitioners' 2019 tax year.
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 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; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); 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, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, 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. The notice of deficiency is sufficient if mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. I.R.C. sec. 6212(b). Absent clear and concise notification to the IRS of a different address, a taxpayer's last known address is the address appearing on the taxpayer's most recently filed and properly processed tax return. Sec. 301.6212-2(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 1988), aff 'g 88 T.C. 1042 (1987). The taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the notice of deficiency was not sent to the taxpayer's last known address. Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 808 (1987). 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).
Here, based upon the 2018 notice of deficiency's mailing date of February 8, 2022, the 90-day period to timely file a petition expired on May 9, 2022. As mentioned above, the petition to commence this case was electronically filed on May 23, 2022, was 104 days after the 2018 notice of deficiency was mailed.
In their opposition to the motion to dismiss, petitioners assert their understanding was that, as their 2018 and 2019 tax years were audited at the same time, both years would be heard at the same time by the Tax Court. However, as the record establishes that the petition in this case was not timely filed as to the notice of deficiency issued for petitioners' 2018 tax year, the Court is obliged to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction so much of this case relating to 2018. While we are sympathetic to petitioners' circumstances, we have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, although petitioners may not prosecute this case in this Court as to their 2018 tax year, petitioners may still pursue an administrative resolution of their 2018 tax liability directly with the IRS.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to 2018 is granted and so much of this case relating to tax year 2018 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners are advised that so much of this case relating to the notice of deficiency issued for their 2019 tax year remains pending before the Court.