Opinion
5383-24S
06-17-2024
KRISTINA D. BRITT & STEVEN A. BRITT, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On May 24, 2024, respondent filed in the above-docketed case a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). Respondent attached to the motion a copy of a certified mail list (U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Form 3877), as evidence of the fact that a notice of deficiency for the taxable year 2021, dated January 2, 2024, had been sent to petitioners by certified mail on January 2, 2024.
The petition herein was filed with the Court on April 4, 2024, which date is 93 days after the date of the notice of deficiency for tax year 2021 mailed to petitioners. The petition had been filed electronically on that January 2, 2024, date, received at 1:16 p.m., and an address in Brandywine, Maryland, was provided as the mailing address.
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 a case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982); 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, section 6213(a), I.R.C., 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 the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). The Court has no authority to extend this 90-day (or 150-day) period. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. at 166-67; Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, a petition shall be treated as timely filed if it is filed on or before the last date specified in such notice for the filing of a Tax Court petition, a provision which becomes relevant where that date is later than the date computed with reference to the mailing date. Sec. 6213(a), I.R.C. Likewise, if the conditions of section 7502, I.R.C., are satisfied, a petition which is timely mailed may be treated as having been timely filed.
A petition is ordinarily "filed" when it is received by the Tax Court in Washington, D.C. See, e.g., Leventis v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 353, 354 (1968). Although the Court may sit at any place within the United States, its principal office, its mailing address, and its Clerk's office are in the District of Columbia. Sec. 7445, I.R.C.; Rule 10, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. And a document that is electronically filed with the Court is filed when it is received by the Court as determined in reference to where the Court is located. Nutt v. Commissioner, No. 15959-22, 160 T.C. (May 2, 2023).
In the present case, the time for filing a petition with this Court expired on April 1, 2024. However, the petition was not filed within that period.
Petitioners were served with a copy of respondent's motion to dismiss and, on June 14, 2024, filed a response in apparent objection, along with a supporting supplement. Therein, petitioners did not directly deny the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion and did not allege that petitioners had filed with the Tax Court before the statutory deadline. Rather, the submissions focused solely on the substance of the case, i.e., petitioners' position regarding the proper amount of tax owed in connection with income from an inherited retirement account: "The amount owed per the 'notice of defiency [sic]' is 12626 however the amount owed on the 1040X is 5387, attached 1040X". The supporting supplement provided copies of petitioners' original and amended returns.
Thus, at this juncture, the Court has received from petitioners nothing that denies, or even appears to acknowledge, the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion. The only other meaningful correspondence received, i.e., the petition, likewise focused only on the inherited IRA. Nothing has addressed in any way the timeliness of the original petition. Any evidence of a timely petition to the Tax Court therefore remains absent from the record.
Hence, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioners' situation and understands the unintentional character of the inadvertence here, as well as the challenges of the circumstances faced and the good faith efforts made, the fundamental nature of the filing deadline here precludes the case from going forward. As a Court of limited jurisdiction, the Court is traditionally unable to offer any remedy or assistance when a petition is filed late. Rather, the Court is barred from considering in any way petitioners' case or the correctness of petitioners' claims. Governing law within the Fourth Circuit recognizes no reasonable cause or other applicable exception to the statutory deadline, and the allegation that the petition was sent three days late remains unrebutted.
The Court has no authority to extend that period provided by law for filing a petition "whatever the equities of a particular case may be and regardless of the cause for its not being filed within the required period." Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). Accordingly, since petitioners have failed to establish that the petition was mailed to or filed with this Court within the required 90-day period, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court would, however, encourage petitioners to consider or continue working administratively through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which, being entirely separate from the Tax Court, may be able to offer alternative avenues for relief, not dependent on the existence of a Tax Court case, such as audit reconsideration or a refund action.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.