From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Black v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Dec 15, 2023
No. 13618-23 (U.S.T.C. Dec. 15, 2023)

Opinion

13618-23

12-15-2023

JEFFREY ALAN BLACK & AMY JACQUELINE BLACK, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


ORDER

Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge

On October 4, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Taxable Year 2020 and to Strike on the grounds that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code with respect to tax year 2020. Although the Court provided petitioners the opportunity to file an objection to respondent's Motion, petitioners have not done so.

Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 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 the timely filing of a petition 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). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 n.4 (2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); 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).

The record in this case establishes that the Petition was not timely filed as to tax year 2020 and, accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case, insofar as it concerns tax year 2020, for lack of jurisdiction. We have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 167; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, although petitioners cannot prosecute so much of their case as pertains to 2020 in this Court, they may still pursue an administrative resolution of their 2020 tax liability directly with the IRS. Further, petitioners are advised that this case will continue as to tax year 2021, which was not implicated by respondent's Motion.

Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Taxable Year 2020 and to Strike is granted, and so much of this case as concerns tax year 2020 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by I.R.C. section 6213(a). It is further

ORDERED that at all portions of the Petition in which reference is made to taxable year 2020 are deemed stricken from the record in this case.


Summaries of

Black v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Dec 15, 2023
No. 13618-23 (U.S.T.C. Dec. 15, 2023)
Case details for

Black v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY ALAN BLACK & AMY JACQUELINE BLACK, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF…

Court:United States Tax Court

Date published: Dec 15, 2023

Citations

No. 13618-23 (U.S.T.C. Dec. 15, 2023)