Opinion
20591-22
11-30-2022
CARLOS ANTONIO BANKS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On November 9, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the 90-day period prescribed by IRC section 6213(a). In his motion to dismiss respondent states that petitioner does not object to the granting of the motion.
The record reflects that respondent mailed a notice of deficiency to petitioner for the taxable year 2021 on June 9, 2022. The 90-day period for filing a timely petition with the Court under IRC section 6213(a) expired on September 12, 2022. The petition was electronically filed with the Court on September 21, 2022--a date beyond the 90-day filing period.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise that jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency 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). The Court has no authority to extend the statutory period for filing a timely petition in response to a notice of deficiency. Hallmark Research Collective, supra; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). The petition in this case was not timely filed and we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
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.