Opinion
36913-21S
06-06-2023
SENTERA SHELETT COOK, 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. Petitioner opposes the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
On August 9, 2021, respondent sent by certified mail a Notice of Deficiency for the taxable year 2019 to petitioner at her last known address. The Notice is addressed to petitioner at an address within the United States and informs her that the last date to file a petition with this Court is November 8, 2021.
On December 10, 2021, the Court received and filed the Petition to commence this case. The Petition, which seeks redetermination of the aforementioned deficiency, arrived at the Court in an envelope bearing a U.S. Postal Service postmark date of December 4, 2021.
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); Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C., slip op. at 6 n.4 (Nov. 29, 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 Research Collective, slip op. at 42; see also Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 2020). 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.
Because the Notice of Deficiency was mailed to petitioner's last known address on August 9, 2021, the last date to file a petition with this Court as to that Notice was November 8, 2021, as stated in the Notice. As noted above, the Petition in this case was filed on December 10, 2021. 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 a postmark of December 4, 2021. Consequently, the Petition was not filed (or deemed filed) within the period prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code, and this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The 90th day after the date of mailing was Sunday, November 7, 2021; 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.
In her Objection to respondent's Motion to Dismiss, petitioner asserts that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, "certain circumstances were out of [her] control."
The COVID-19 pandemic did lead to the extension of certain tax-related filing deadlines, including the deadline for filing a petition with this Court; however, the circumstances here fall outside the relief afforded. The Court's decision in Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 320 (2016), together with Notice 2020-23, 2020-18 I.R.B. 742 (Apr. 27, 2020), extended to July 15, 2020, the deadline for filing petitions with due dates between March 19, 2020, and July 15, 2020. But, as noted above, the due date for filing a petition in this case was November 8, 2021. Thus, the relevant authorities had no effect on the due date in this case, and the Petition was untimely, even after accounting for the extensions granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
We are sympathetic to petitioner's circumstances. But we have no authority to extend the time for filing a petition with this Court for redetermination of a deficiency "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). Nevertheless, while petitioner cannot pursue her case in this Court, she may continue to pursue administrative resolution of the 2019 tax liability with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Another remedy potentially available to petitioner, if feasible, is to pay the determined amount and thereafter file a claim for refund with the IRS. If that claim is denied (or not acted upon after six months), petitioner may file a suit for refund in the appropriate U.S. District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 n.5 (1970).
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 1, 2022, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.