Opinion
10609-24
09-30-2024
JOEL S. BLISS & VALERIE S. BLISS, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On June 25, 2024, petitioners filed the Petition to commence this case, indicating that they seek review with respect to notice(s) of deficiency and notice(s) of determination concerning collection action issued for their "2019 to 2023" tax years. Currently pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss), filed August 16, 2024. As grounds for his motion to dismiss, respondent asserts that (1) as to a notice of deficiency issued for petitioners' 2019 tax year, the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code; (2) respondent made no other determination as to petitioners' 2019 tax year sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court; and (3) respondent did not issue any notice of deficiency, nor has respondent made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioners' 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 tax years. On September 26, 2024, petitioners filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
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 depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2020); 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.) section 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). We have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. at 167; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). If a petition is timely mailed and properly addressed to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C., it will be considered timely filed. See I.R.C. §7502(a)(1). In order for the timely mailing/timely filing provision to apply, the envelope containing the petition must bear a postmark with a date that is on or before the last date for timely filing a petition. See I.R.C. § 7502(a)(2). If the postmark is missing or illegible, a taxpayer may present extrinsic evidence to prove the date of mailing. See Anderson v. U.S., 966 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1992); Mason v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 354 (1977). 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 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).
Similarly, in a case seeking review of certain IRS collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330 (after petitioner has requested and received a collection due process hearing following the issuance of a notice of filing of federal tax lien, a final notice of intent to levy, or an analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under I.R.C. section 6330(f), such as a notice of levy on your State tax refund and notice of your right to a hearing) and the filing by the taxpayer of a Petition concerning that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 38 (2005); I.R.C. §§ 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
With respect to the notice of deficiency issued for petitioners' 2019 tax year, the record reflects that the notice was sent by certified mail to petitioners' last known address (the same address used by petitioners when filing their Petition) on March 1, 2024. Based on that mailing date, the 90-day period to timely file a Tax Court petition expired on May 30, 2024. The Court received and filed the Petition on June 25, 2024. The Petition was received in an envelope bearing a postmark dated June 18, 2024. As to the 2019 notice of deficiency, therefore, the Petition was late. Moreover, petitioners have failed to demonstrate that respondent made any other determination as to their 2019 tax year sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, or that respondent issued a notice of deficiency or made any other determination as to their 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 tax years that would permit petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
In their objection to the motion to dismiss, petitioners address only the notice of deficiency issued for their 2019 tax year. Petitioners suggest that the notice of deficiency is invalid because it violates I.R.C. section 6065, which states in relevant part: "Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return, declaration, statement, or other document required to be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or regulations shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury." Petitioners, however, are mistaken. Section 6065 imposes requirements on documents filed by taxpayers and does not apply to the Commissioner. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 42 (2000).
As discussed above, the record establishes that there is no basis on which the Court may exercise jurisdiction of this case. We are obliged, therefore, to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
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.