Opinion
14180-20
03-14-2022
LOUIS D. BROWN Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICATION
Peter J. Panuthos Special Trial Judge
On December 8, 2020, the Court received and filed a petition to commence this case. Petitioner checked boxes indicating that he was disputing a Notice of Deficiency, a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action, and a Notice of Determination for the Disallowance of Interest Abatement. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the petition, petitioner indicates the notice being disputed was dated November 24, 2020 and was issued for the 2016 tax year. Petitioner did not attach a copy of the notice of deficiency or any other notices to the petition.
On March 19, 2021, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed. Respondent attached to the motion, a copy of the notice of deficiency addressed to petitioner for tax year 2016, dated March 11, 2019. Respondent also attached a copy of U.S. Postal Service Form 3877 showing the notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioner's last known address, by certified mail on March 11, 2019. Respondent also asserts that there no other notices issued to petitioner that would provide a basis for jurisdiction.
By Order dated March 23, 2021, this Court required that petitioner should, on or before April 22, 2021, file a written objection, if any, to respondent's motion. In an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed April 28, 2021, petitioner denied receipt of the March 11, 2019 notice, but did not provide any further details.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). Where this Court's jurisdiction in a case is properly challenged, the jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown by the party seeking to invoke that jurisdiction (here, petitioner). Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960).
In a deficiency case, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Rule13(a) and (c); Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982). In this regard, 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 the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). 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. sec. 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 day for timely filing a petition. See I.R.C. sec. 7502(a)(2). The notice of deficiency is sufficient if mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. I.R.C. sec. 6212(b). 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).
Unless otherwise indicated, Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.
The record reflects that respondent mailed a notice of deficiency for 2016 on March 11, 2019 by certified mail to 2184 E 82nd Street, Cleveland, Ohio, 44103. The petition was received and filed with the Court on December 8, 2020, which date is 638 days after the mailing of the notice of deficiency. The petition was received by the Court in an envelope that bears a postmark dated December 1, 2020, which date is 631 days after the notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioner. The address reflected in the petition, 2184 E 82nd Street, Cleveland, Ohio, 44103, is the same address to which the notice of deficiency was mailed. The last day by which petitioner could timely petition this Court with respect to the notice of deficiency was June 10, 2019, which date was not a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia.
In his objection, petitioner denies signing a receipt for the March 11, 2019 notice of deficiency and requests that respondent produce a signed certification of receipt. Petitioner notably does not assert the notice of deficiency was not sent to his last known address. As discussed above, the notice of deficiency is sufficient if it is mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. Furthermore, respondent is not required to prove actual receipt. Petitioner has not provided a copy of any other notice that might provide a basis for jurisdiction to this Court.
Based on the foregoing, the petition was not timely filed and therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiency for tax year 2016. Given our conclusion herein, we will deny petitioner's (1) Motion for Summary Judgement and (2) Motion for First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Document, each filed on April 28, 2021.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 19, 2021, is granted, and this case is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgement, filed April 28, 2021, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Document, filed April 28, 2021, is denied.