Opinion
16491-22
10-13-2023
CHARLIE DAVID TENNISON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Joseph W. Nega Judge
On September 12, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction upon the ground that the petition in this case was not filed within the time prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code. By Order served September 14, 2023, petitioner was directed to respond to respondent's motion on or before October 10, 2023, and filed a response and affidavit in support with the Court on October 11, 2023.
The record in this case reflects that respondent issued a Notice of Deficiency for the 2018 tax year dated April 4, 2022, to petitioner's last known address, the address shown in the Notice of Deficiency, by certified mail on April 4, 2022. The last date that petitioner could have mailed/timely filed the petition would have been July 5, 2022. Petitioner's petition was postmarked July 9, 2022, and the petition was received and filed by the Court on July 14, 2022. Both the filing and mailing dates are after the date a timely petition could be filed with the Court.
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 a case seeking the 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 and Procedure; Foster v. Commissioner, 445 F.2d 799, 800 (10th Cir. 1971); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982). In this regard, Internal Revenue Code 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 the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). The Court has no authority to extend this 90-day (or 150-day) period. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. at 166-67; Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, a petition shall be treated as timely filed if it is filed on or before the last date specified in such notice for the filing of a Tax Court petition, a provision which becomes relevant where that date is later than the date computed with reference to the mailing date. I.R.C. § 6213(a).
Likewise, if the conditions of Internal Revenue Code section 7502 are satisfied, a petition which is timely mailed may be treated as having been timely filed.
A petition is ordinarily "filed" when it is received by the Tax Court in Washington, D.C. See, e.g., Leventis v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 353, 354 (1968). Although the Court may sit at any place within the United States, its principal office, its mailing address, and its Clerk's office are in the District of Columbia. I.R.C. § 7445; Rule 10, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. And a document that is electronically filed with the Court is filed when it is received by the Court as determined in reference to where the Court is located. Nutt v. Commissioner, No. 15959-22, 160 T.C. slip op. at *6 (May 2, 2023).
The record shows that the petition was not timely filed.
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.