Opinion
8923-21S
07-13-2023
JONATHAN ROSS BUDHRAM & AMANDA RACKLEY-BUDHRAM, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Diana L. Leyden Special Trial Judge
The Petition in this case was filed with the Court on March 15, 2021. Petitioners seek review of a notice of deficiency dated November 23, 2020, for tax year 2018. Petitioners attached a copy of the notice of deficiency to the Petition, which indicated the last day to file a petition with the Tax Court was February 22, 2021.
On July 16, 2021, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was not timely filed (motion). Petitioners' views on the granting of the motion were unknown.
By Order served July 27, 2021, the Court directed petitioners, on or before August 24, 2021, to file an objection, and that failure to comply with that Order may result in the granting of respondent's motion and dismissal of the case or other appropriate action. On August 31, 2021, petitioners filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (objection).
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may exercise its jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). 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. Rule 13(c). A petition is timely if filed within 90 days of the mailing of the notice of deficiency. I.R.C. § 6213(a). If a petition is not timely filed, the Court does not have jurisdiction to redetermine the IRS' deficiency determination. Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. No. 6 (November 29, 2022). In this case, the time for filing a petition with this Court expired February 22, 2021. However, the Petition was not filed within that period.
By Order served April 27, 2023, the Court directed respondent, on or before May 30, 2023, to file a response to petitioners' above-referenced objection. In that response, following a diligent inquiry with knowledgeable U.S. Postal Service (USPS) personnel, respondent shall set forth and discuss fully when an envelope, properly addressed to the U.S. Tax Court and mailed from Sacramento, California, would have ordinarily been received at the Court. Such ordinary mailing time shall take into account the irradiation of mail sent to the U.S. Tax Court and, if possible, any other factors that may have impacted mail delivery times during the period in question, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
On May 25, 2023, respondent filed a Response to Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (response) indicating that on May 5, 2023, respondent communicated with a USPS employee in their law department. Respondent further indicated that mail shipped to the Tax Court and the irradiation process; USPS's standard service for delivery from Sacramento, California to the 3055 V Street USPS building is 5 days. The mail is then transported for irradiation. The irradiation process can take about 5-10 days. The mail is sorted and delivered to the recipient government agency, which takes about 1-3 days. Based on this information, the USPS employee stated that the total estimated delivery time from Sacramento, CA to the Tax Court would be 12 to 19 days. This estimate includes an additional day for non-delivery on Sundays. Further, the USPS employee stated that the Postal Service is not aware of any significant delays in the irradiation process in February of 2021. The Petition did not reach the Court until March 15, 2021, which is 21-days after the expiration date of timely filing a petition. Based on the timeline provided by the USPS employee, a petition mailed on February 22, 2021 (the last day to timely file a petition) would have been received by the Court between March 6, 2021, and March 13, 2021. Further, petitioners assert that the Petition was mailed on February 18, 2021. Based on the timeline provided by the USPS employee, a petition mailed on February 18, 2021, would have been received by the Court between March 2, 2021, and March 9, 2021. Based on the foregoing, the Petition was not filed with the Court within the time prescribed by sections 6213(a) or 7502.
By Order served June 7, 2023, respondent's above-referenced Motion was assigned to the undersigned for disposition. On June 23, 2023, the pending motion was set for hearing at a remote Special Session scheduled to commence on Wednesday, August 2, 2023, in Washington, DC.
On July 11, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Status Report indicating the parties have resolved this case administratively and that petitioners no longer object to respondent's motion. Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed July 16, 2021, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was not timely filed as to tax year 2018.