Opinion
175-23
07-12-2024
STACEY CAVAGNUOLO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.
On January 4, 2023, petitioner electronically filed the Petition to commence this case, indicating therein that she seeks to challenge a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 issued as to her "2015-2018" tax years.
Currently pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 2, 2023, and supplemented on April 17, 2023, and July 9, 2024 (collectively, respondent's motion to dismiss). In his motion to dismiss, respondent asserts that as to tax years 2015, 2017, and 2018, the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). Petitioner's objection, filed May 12, 2023, explains why the Petition was not timely filed as to petitioner's 2015, 2017, and 2018 tax years. Otherwise, however, petitioner does not challenge any of the facts that are relied upon by respondent in support of his motion to dismiss.
The record in this case reflects that, on June 21, 2021, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) received from petitioner a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, in which petitioner requested innocent spouse relief for her 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 tax years. On October 4, 2022, respondent mailed to petitioner's a notice of determination as to petitioner's request for section 6015 relief for her 2015, 2017, and 2018 tax years. That notice was mailed to petitioner's last known address, which was the same address used by petitioner when filing her Petition. As noted above, the Petition was electronically filed January 4, 2023. Respondent did not issue any notice of determination with respect to petitioner's 2016 tax year because petitioner and her spouse did not file any tax return for that year and there was no assessment or balance due for 2016; therefore, respondent determined petitioner did not meet the qualifications for innocent spouse relief for tax year 2016.
Like all federal courts, 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 such as this one, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the issuance of a notice of determination concerning joint and several liability under section 6015. Where such a notice of determination is issued, petitioner must also timely file a petition. Internal Revenue Code section 6015(e)(1)(A) specifically provides that the petition, to be timely, must be filed within 90 days of the issuance of the notice of determination (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). The 90-day filing deadline of section 6015(e)(1)(A) is jurisdictional. See Frutiger v. Commissioner, No. 31153-21, 162 T.C., slip op. at 12 (Mar. 11, 2024). Furthermore, the Court has no authority to extend this 90-day period. See id.; Pollack v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 21, 32 (2009) ("[S]ection 6015(e)(1)(A)'s 90-day limit is jurisdictional and therefore doesn't allow for equitable tolling . . . ."). In addition, this Court has jurisdiction of a case where the IRS fails to issue a notice of determination concerning joint and several liability within six months of the filing of a claim for innocent spouse relief. See I.R.C. § 6015(e)(1)(A)(i).
Here, as to petitioner's request for innocent spouse relief for her 2015, 2017, and 2018 tax years, the 90 day-period for filing a timely petition expired on January 3, 2023. Accordingly, the Petition, electronically filed on January 4, 2023, was not timely, and we therefore must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction so much of this case relating to petitioner's 2015, 2017, and 2018 tax years. However, because the IRS did not issue a notice of determination as to petitioner's 2016 tax year and the Petition was filed more than six months after petitioner filed her claim for innocent spouse relief, we have jurisdiction in this case as to petitioner's 2016 tax year. See Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306, 311-312 (2002), aff'd, 101 Fed.Appx. 34 (6th Cir. 2004), Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 2, 2023, is recharacterized as a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Tax Years 2015, 2017, and 2018, It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Tax Years 2015, 2017, and 2018, as supplemented, is granted in that so much of this case relating to tax years 2015, 2017, and 2018 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by section 6015(e)(1)(A) and is deemed stricken from the Court's record.
The parties are advised that so much of this case relating to petitioner's 2016 tax year currently remains pending before this Court.