Opinion
2444-23
09-29-2023
DANIEL CASTRO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
This case for the redetermination of a deficiency is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed April 12, 2023. Petitioner opposes the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
On September 22, 2022, respondent sent to petitioner, by certified mail to his last known address, a notice of deficiency for the taxable year 2021. The notice, dated September 26, 2022, was addressed to petitioner at an address within the United States and informed him that the last date to file a petition with this Court was December 27, 2022.
On January 27, 2023, the Court received and filed the Petition to commence this case. The Petition, which seeks redetermination of the aforementioned deficiency, was delivered to the Court by the United States Postal Service in an envelope bearing no postmark. The Petition is signed and dated January 1, 2023.
In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, as here, our jurisdiction depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. See §§ 6212 and 6213; Rule 13(a) and (c); 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). Generally, a notice of deficiency will be deemed valid for this purpose if it is sent to the taxpayer's last known address by certified or registered mail. See § 6212(a) and (b); Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 807 (1987). In order to be timely, a petition must be filed within 90 days (or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States) of the date on which the Commissioner mails a valid notice of deficiency. See § 6213(a); Estate of Cerrito v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 896, 898 (1980). We have no authority to extend this 90-day period. See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 166-67. However, under certain circumstances, a timely mailed petition may be treated as though it were timely filed. See § 7502; Treas. Reg. § 301.7502-1.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C, in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Notwithstanding the fact that the notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioner's last known address on September 22, 2022, the notice bears a date of September 26, 2022. Thus, the last date to file a timely petition as to that notice was December 27, 2022, as stated in the notice. As noted above, the Petition in this case was filed on January 27, 2023. And, although a petition that is delivered to the Court after the expiration of time provided by section 6213(a) shall be deemed timely if it bears a timely postmark, see § 7502, the Petition in this case was delivered to the Court in an envelope bearing no postmark. Consequently, the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code, and this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Where a notice of deficiency bears a date later than its actual date of mailing, it is treated as having been mailed on the later date for purposes of the 90-day period for filing a petition with the Court. See Loyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-172; Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-171. Accordingly, we use the date of September 26, 2022, to determine whether the Petition in this case was timely filed. The 90th day after the deemed date of mailing was Sunday, December 25, 2022; however, section 6213(a) provides that Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays in the District of Columbia are not counted as the last day of the 90-day period. Because Monday, December 26, 2022, was a legal holiday in the District of Columbia, the last date to file a timely petition as to the notice of deficiency in this case was December 27, 2022.
We note that, although the envelope is not postmarked, petitioner's signature on the Petition is dated January 1, 2022. Moreover, in his Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed May 5, 2023, petitioner acknowledges that he "was late for sending the documents to the court." To obtain the benefits of section 7502, a taxpayer has the burden of proof to establish timely mailing. See Treas. Reg. § 301.7502-1(c)(1)(iii)(A); see also Isabel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-181. Petitioner has not carried that burden here.
In 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.