Opinion
12480-24S
09-27-2024
JAMES DEWEY CHARLES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On September 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 copies of a notice of deficiency for 2021 and the corresponding certified mail list (U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Form 3877), as evidence of the fact that such notice dated May 2, 2024, had been sent to petitioner by certified mail on May 2, 2024.
The petition herein was filed with the Court on August 1, 2024, which date is 91 days after the date of the notice of deficiency for tax year 2021 mailed to petitioner. The petition had been filed electronically on that August 1, 2024, date, received at 2:14 a.m., and an address in Surprise, Arizona, 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. Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082, 1092 (9th Cir. 2020); 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, 160 T.C. 470 (2023).
In the present case, the time for filing a petition with this Court expired on July 31, 2024. However, the petition was not filed within that period.
Petitioner was served with a copy of respondent's motion to dismiss and, on September 25, 2024, filed a response in objection, with supporting supplementary materials. Therein, petitioner took the position that the petition timely filed. To wit, petitioner summarized his stance as follows: "Under IRC § 6213(a), this Court has jurisdiction to hear timely petitions concerning notices of deficiency. The key consideration is whether the petition was filed within the appropriate time frame, which I assert it was. The timing of the petition submission should be assessed based on the date of filing, not arbitrary time zone differences that do not affect the validity of the petition." He then when on to specify: "Time Zone Considerations Are Irrelevant: The assertion that jurisdiction is negated by a time zone difference lacks legal foundation. The tax laws do not provide for jurisdictional dismissals based on such arguments, and there is no precedent supporting this claim."
Regrettably, however, petitioner's assertion as to lack of precedent is misplaced. As indicated above, the Court has already considered this particular issue. The rule was established in Nutt v. Commissioner, 160 T.C. at 475, where the Court observed: "If we were to hold that the Nutts' electronically filed Petition was timely because it was still the last day to file in Alabama, even though the last day had ended in the District of Columbia, we would impermissibly be extending the number of days available for filing." In other words, the Court has held explicitly that a document which 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. That location is in Washington, DC, in the Eastern Time Zone. Here, the documentation of electronic receipt by the Court at 2:14 a.m. on August 1, 2024, is clear.
Petitioner also sought to rely on a confirmation email from pay.gov for the payment of the Court's $60.00 filing fee. While the material shows that the email was sent to and received by petitioner on July 31, 2024, at 11:19 p.m. at his location in the Mountain Time Zone, it was in confirmation of a transaction that occurred on August 1, 2024, at 2:19 a.m. in the Eastern Time Zone, reflecting "Transaction Date: 08/01/2024 02:19:32 AM EDT". The funds were not received by the East Coast entity on July 31, 2024, as that day was over here before they were sent.
Hence, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioner's 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 precludes the case from going forward. As a Court of limited jurisdiction, the Court is unable to offer any remedy or assistance when a petition is filed late. Rather, the Court is barred from considering in any way petitioner's case or the correctness of petitioner's claims. Unfortunately, governing law within the Ninth Circuit recognizes no reasonable cause or other applicable exception to the statutory deadline, and the allegation that the petition was submitted one day late remains unrebutted.
The Court has no authority in this context 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 petitioner has 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 petitioner, despite any frustrations, 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.