Opinion
9280-22
06-12-2023
BRIEN P. CHRISTOPHERSON & PAMELA A. CHRISTOPHERSON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On June 1, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). On October 5, 2022, the Court received a Letter from petitioners. Petitioners did not address the merits of respondent's Motion in their Letter. Although the Court directed petitioners to file an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion, they have failed to do so.
The record in this case reflects that a notice of deficiency for tax year 2019 was sent to petitioners' last known address by certified mail on January 3, 2022. The 90-day period for filing a timely petition with the Court under I.R.C. section 6213(a) expired on April 4, 2022. The Court received and filed the Petition on April 13, 2022. The Petition was received in an envelope bearing a postmark date of April 7, 2022. Both the filing and mailing dates are beyond the 90-day filing period.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise that jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C., slip op. at 14 (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). The Court has no authority to extend the statutory period for filing a timely petition in response to a notice of deficiency. Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C., slip op. at 42; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). The Petition in this case was not timely filed, and we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Although petitioners may not prosecute this case in the Tax Court, nothing precludes petitioners from continuing to pursue administrative resolution of their 2019 tax liability directly with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It also may be possible for petitioners to pay the tax, file a claim for refund with the IRS, and, if the claim is denied (or if no action thereon is taken within 6 months), sue for a refund in the appropriate Federal District Court or the United States Court of Federal Claims. See I.R.C. secs. 6532(a), 7422(a); 28 U.S.C. secs. 1346(a)(1), 1491(a)(1); McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 n.5 (1970).
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.