Opinion
37911-21
02-20-2024
MELVIN AUSTINRAJ, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
By Order to Show Cause served April 17, 2023, the Court directed the parties to show cause in writing why this deficiency case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code.
On May 5, 2023, petitioner filed a Response, and on May 8, 2023, respondent filed a Response, along with a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was not timely filed. For the reasons that follow, we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See § 7442; Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 1, 11 (2021). 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 David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975). To meet this burden, the taxpayer "must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, as here, our jurisdiction depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. See §§ 6212 and 6213; Rule 13(a) and (c); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 & n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); 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 Third Circuit). Generally, a notice of deficiency will be deemed valid for this purpose if it is sent to the taxpayer's last known address by certified or registered mail. See § 6212(a) and (b); Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 807 (1987). In order to be timely, a petition generally must be filed within 90 days of the date on which the Commissioner mails a valid notice of deficiency. See § 6213(a); Estate of Cerrito v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 896, 898 (1980). We have no authority to extend this 90-day period. See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 166-67. However, under certain circumstances, a timely mailed petition may be treated as though it were timely filed. See § 7502; Treas. Reg. § 301.7502-1.
If the notice of deficiency is addressed to a person outside the United States, a petition must be filed within 150 days of the mailing of the notice. See § 6213(a); Smith v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. 48 (2013); Lewy v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 779 (1977). The notice of deficiency in this case is addressed to petitioner at an address within the United States, and there is no indication in the record that petitioner was outside the United States at or about the time when the notice was mailed.
The record establishes that the notice of deficiency upon which this case is based was sent by certified mail on September 27, 2021, to petitioner's last known address. Accordingly, the last date to file a petition with this Court as to that notice was December 27, 2021, as stated therein. The Petition in this case was filed on December 29, 2021. And, although a petition that is delivered to the Court after the expiration of time provided by section 6213(a) shall be deemed timely if it bears a timely postmark, see § 7502, the Petition in this case was delivered to the Court in an envelope bearing a postmark date of December 28, 2021. Consequently, the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code, and this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The 90th day after the date of mailing was Sunday, December 26, 2021; however, section 6213(a) provides that Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays in the District of Columbia are not counted as the last day of the 90-day period. Hence, the last date to file a petition as to the notice of deficiency in this case was December 27, 2021.
We note that the dismissal of this case does not preclude petitioner from pursuing administrative resolution of the 2018 tax liability directly with the Internal Revenue Service.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause is hereby made absolute. It is further
ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by section 6213(a). It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is moot.