Opinion
11779-23
12-27-2023
MARIA ACOSTA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.
On September 15, 2023, the Commissioner (respondent) filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the grounds that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On December 5, 2023, petitioner Maria Acosta filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
The record reflects that a notice of deficiency for petitioner's 2021 tax year was sent by certified mail to petitioner's last known address on March 27, 2023. The notice of deficiency stated that the last day to file a Petition with the Tax Court was June 26, 2023. The Petition to commence this case was electronically filed on July 25, 2023.
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 generally depends, in part, on the timely filing of a Petition by the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice of Procedure; Hoffenberg v. Commissioner, 905 F.2d 665 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam), aff 'g T.C. Memo. 1989-676; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); see 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). In this regard, and as relevant here, Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) §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).
The notice of deficiency is sufficient if mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. I.R.C. §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. Treas. Reg. §301.6212-2(a); 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).
Based upon the notice of deficiency's mailing date of March 27, 2023, the 90-day period for filing a timely Petition with the Tax Court expired June 26, 2023. Petitioner electronically filed her Petition on July 25, 2023, which was 120 days after the notice was mailed. Thus the record establishes that the Petition was not timely filed.
In her objection to the motion to dismiss, petitioner does not address respondent's allegations concerning the untimeliness of her Petition. Rather, petitioner argues the merits of her claims in this case. However, unless the Court has jurisdiction, we cannot reach the merits of a case.
Because the Petition was not timely filed, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. 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 petitioner may not prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may still pursue an administrative resolution of the 2021 tax liability directly with the IRS. Also, another remedy potentially available to petitioner, if feasible, is to pay the determined amounts, file a claim for refund with the IRS, and then (if the claim is denied or not acted on for six months), bring 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 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 because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by Internal Revenue Code §6213(a).