Opinion
21686-22S
06-29-2023
ROBERT THOMAS BASSFORD, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
Presently before the Court is our Order to Show Cause served on May 15, 2023, directing the parties to show cause in writing, on or before June 9, 2023, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was not mailed to or filed with the Tax Court within the time prescribed by Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6213(a) or 7502. Petitioner has not filed an objection or any other response to our Order to Show Cause.
On June 7, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was not timely filed. Respondent stated therein that the "parties are working to resolve the case administratively, and petitioner did not express any concerns regarding the filing of this motion to dismiss." Respondent's representation is consistent with a Letter from petitioner filed December 27, 2022, in which petitioner indicated that he was pursuing an administrative resolution with the Internal Revenue Service.
I.R.C. section 6213(a) provides that a 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 record reflects that a notice of deficiency for tax year 2019 was sent to petitioner's last known address by certified mail on June 27, 2022. The 90-day period for submitting a timely petition to the Court ended on September 26, 2022. On October 3, 2022, the Court received and filed the Petition, which arrived in an envelope bearing an undated UPS Ground label. The filing date of the Petition is beyond the 90-day filing period.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. See Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C., slip op. at 14 (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 submitting a timely petition in response to a deficiency notice. Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C., slip op. at 42; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). Section 7502(f) extends the "timely mailed, timely filed" rule of section 7502 to certain private delivery services. But this extension applies only if the delivery service in question has been "designated" by the Secretary for purposes of section 7502. Sec. 7502(f)(2).
In this case, the Court received the Petition after the filing deadline in an envelope bearing an undated UPS Ground label. Even if we could discern the mailing date from that label, UPS Ground is not a designated private delivery service. See Notice 2016-30, 2016-18 I.R.B. 676; Raczkowski v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-72 (holding that the "timely mailed, timely filed" rule did not apply to "UPS Ground" service because that service had not been designated under section 7502(f)). Accordingly, because the Petition was not timely filed, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause, served on May 15, 2023, is hereby made absolute. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed June 7, 2023, is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.