Opinion
35992-21
02-03-2023
CRAIG R. CORDT & GRETCHEN A. CORDT, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Elizabeth Crewson Paris, Judge.
This case was set for trial at the December 5, 2022, Standalone Remote Trial Session of the Court held in Washington, DC.
On November 2, 2022, docket entry 19, respondent filed with the Court a Motion for Continuance and stated that after this case was set for trial the parties reached a resolution on all substantive issues raised by the notice of deficiency. This agreement was reduced to writing in a proposed Stipulation of Settled Issues that petitioners signed and sent to respondent on September 15, 2022. After petitioners signed the proposed Stipulation of Settled Issues, but before it was signed by respondent or filed with Court, respondent's counsel determined that the Petition in this case had not been timely filed.
On November 4, 2022, docket entry 20, respondent filed with the Court 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.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
On November 14, 2022, docket entry 21, respondent filed a Pretrial Memorandum. The issues listed in respondent's Pretrial Memorandum reflect the parties' most recent position of proposed settlement, as previously agreed to in the Stipulation of Settled issues, should the Court determine that it has jurisdiction in this matter.
By Order dated November 22, 2022, docket entry 23, the Court: (1) retained jurisdiction of this case; (2) granted the Motion for Continuance, continuing the case and striking it for trial from the December 5, 2022, Standalone Remote Trial Session; and (3) took respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction under advisement.
By Order dated December 9, 2022, docket entry 24, the Court directed petitioners, on or before January 9, 2023, to file a response, if any, to respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Court reminded petitioners that failure to comply with this Order may result in the granting of respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
On January 9, 2023, docket entry 25, petitioners filed their response to respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The primary concern of petitioners' response was not to lose the agreements on the issues previously reached by the parties prior to the case's continuance. Petitioners objected to respondent's Motion to Dismiss but did not address the jurisdictional issue of late filing of the Petition.
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. Rule 13(c); Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. No. 6 (Nov. 29, 2022); Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982). In this regard, section 6213(a) 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. 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. § 6213(a). Likewise, if the conditions of section 7502 are satisfied, a petition that is timely mailed may be treated as having been timely filed.
The record shows that the Petition was not timely filed.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed November 4, 2022, docket entry 20, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall attach to this Order a copy of respondent's Pretrial Memorandum, filed November 14, 2022, docket entry 21.