Opinion
5165-22
04-10-2023
YE XU & JARED TROUTMAN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss), filed April 20, 2022, on the grounds that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On December 19, 2022, petitioners filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (objection). Thereafter, on January 25, 2023, respondent filed a Reply to Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
The record reflects that a notice of deficiency, dated October 12, 2021, for petitioners' 2019 tax year was sent by certified mail on that date to petitioners' last known address. The Court received and filed the petition on February 18, 2022, which is 129 days after the notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioners. The petition was received in an envelope bearing a postmark dated February 15, 2022, which is 126 days after the notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioners.
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 deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); 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). 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). 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 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).
In a case seeking review of certain IRS collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination (after petitioner has properly requested and received a collection due process hearing) under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 and the filing by the taxpayer of a petition concerning that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 38 (2005); I.R.C. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Other types of IRS notices which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, are a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability (or failure of IRS to make determination within 6 months after election or request for relief), a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim (or failure of IRS to make final determination within 180 days after claim for abatement), a notice of determination of worker classification, a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action, and a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent Federal tax debt to the Department of State.
In their objection to the motion to dismiss, petitioners assert that, after they were issued the notice of deficiency for their 2019 tax year, they received a Notice CP 22A ("Changes to your 2019 Form 1040"), dated December 27, 2021, with respect to their 2019 tax year, as well as a Notice CP 503 ("You must pay your balance immediately"), dated January 31, 2022, with respect to their 2019 tax year. Petitioners argue that their deadline to file a Tax Court petition, therefore, should be extended based on the subsequent issuance of those additional notices.
The petition in this case was not timely filed. Based on the date the notice of deficiency issued for petitioners' 2019 tax year was mailed, the last date petitioners could timely file (or timely mail) their Tax Court petition was January 10, 2022. As noted above, the Court received and filed the petition on February 18, 2022, and the postmark on the envelope containing the petition was dated February 15, 2022. Furthermore, petitioners have not produced or demonstrated that respondent made any other determination as to their 2019 tax year that would permit them to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The Notice CP 22A and Notice CP 503 issued to petitioners are not notices that provide this Court with jurisdiction, nor do they serve to extend the deadline for timely filing a petition to challenge a notice of deficiency. Accordingly, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
While the Court is sympathetic to petitioners' situation and understands that the IRS notices they received were confusing to them, we have no authority to extend the period for timely filing a petition to challenge a notice of deficiency. Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, supra; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, although petitioners may not prosecute a case in this Court, petitioners may continue to pursue administrative resolution of their 2019 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 is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.