Opinion
17946-22
06-16-2023
BEVERLY A. DARDEN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
On September 23, 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 June 1, 2023, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Objection).
The record in this case reflects that a notice of deficiency for tax year 2018 was sent to petitioner's last known address by certified mail on May 11, 2022. The 90-day period for filing a timely petition with the Court under I.R.C. section 6213(a) expired on August 9, 2022. On August 15, 2022, petitioner electronically filed a Petition seeking redetermination of the deficiency for tax year 2018. The filing date of the Petition is 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).
In her Objection petitioner acknowledges that her Petition was untimely filed. Petitioner asserts that illness from COVID-19 prevented her from submitting her Petition any sooner.
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 August 9, 2022. Thus, the relevant authorities had no effect on the due date in this case. Thus, the Petition in this case was not timely filed even after accounting for the extensions pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
We are sympathetic to petitioner's circumstances. But we have no authority to extend the time for filing a petition 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, 58 T.C. at 259. However, although petitioner may not prosecute this case in the Tax Court, nothing precludes her from continuing to pursue administrative resolution of her 2018 tax liability directly with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It also may be possible for petitioner 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.