Opinion
2475-24
09-03-2024
TODD A. STARK, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Jennifer E. Siegel Special Trial Judge
Pending before the Court is our Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for having been untimely filed in response to the notice of deficiency issued to petitioner for 2020. Upon review of the parties' responses, and of the record, we will discharge the Order to Show Cause.
The notice of deficiency dated October 30, 2023, was mailed on October 26, 2023, to petitioner by certified mail at an address other than his last known address. It was remailed to petitioner and received by him on February 7, 2024. The petition was electronically filed on February 13, 2024.
As has been said many times before, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on both the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); see also 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).
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C, in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
A notice of deficiency actually received by a taxpayer is valid under section 6212(a) if it is received in sufficient time to permit the filing of a petition even though the notice is not properly addressed. See, e.g., Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67-69 (1983) (sustaining a notice of deficiency not sent to the taxpayer's last known address when he actually received it 74 days before the deadline for petitioning this Court); Scheidt v. Commissioner, 967 F.2d 1448, 1450-51 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 811 (1992) (sustaining a notice of deficiency not sent to the taxpayers' last known address when it was received 63 days before the deadline). Here, however, petitioner did not actually receive the notice until after the deadline stamped on the notice had passed.
Acknowledging that respondent re-mailed the notice and petitioner received it, we cannot find that the notice was invalid simply because it was not re-dated and resent by certified mail. See, e.g., Balkissoon v. Commissioner, 995 F.2d 525, 528 (4th Cir. 1993); Smith v. Commissioner, 275 F.3d 912, 915 (10th Cir. 2001). Like other federal courts who construe a liberal construction of section 6213(a) in order to preserve this Court's jurisdiction, see, e.g., Eppler v. Commissioner, 188 F.2d 95, 98 (7th Cir. 1951), Tenzer v. Commissioner, 285 F.2d 956, 958 (9th Cir. 1960), we determine that we have jurisdiction over the deficiency placed in dispute in the petition because the petition was timely filed in response to the remailed notice.
Upon due consideration of the facts as presented and for cause, it is ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause served May 20, 2024, is discharged.