Opinion
19798-22
08-22-2024
DARREN DUANE DILLON, PETITIONER AND KRISTIN A. DILLON, INTERVENOR, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
KATHLEEN KERRIGAN CHIEF JUDGE
On September 1, 2022, the Petition was received and filed by the Court to commence this case. Therein petitioner disputed, for tax year 2017, a notice of deficiency and a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6015.
On October 21, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike as to Petitioner's Disputed Notice of Deficiency, which was based on the ground that the Petition was not filed timely with respect to the notice of deficiency issued to petitioner for tax year 2017. By Order served April 26, 2023, the Court granted respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike as to Petitioner's Disputed Notice of Deficiency and dismissed this case insofar as it concerned the 2017 notice of deficiency. In the Order, the Court noted respondent's concession that the Petition was timely filed as to the notice of determination issued to petitioner for tax year 2017. Further review of the record shows that this concession was incorrect, and the Order will be vacated.
On March 14, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Respondent's motion is based upon the ground that the Petition was not timely filed with respect to the notice of determination issued to petitioner regarding his request for relief under I.R.C. section 6015. Respondent states, "In his October 21, 2022, motion to dismiss, respondent mistakenly stated that petitioner's claim under section 6015 was timely. As discussed below, respondent now argues that petitioner's claim for relief under section 6015 was not timely."
On April 15, 2024, petitioner filed a Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Petitioner, referencing the Court's Order served April 26, 2023, asserts that the Court previously stated that the Petition was timely as to the notice of determination. Otherwise, petitioner does not challenge any of the facts that are relied upon by respondent in support of the motion.
Like all federal courts, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 1, 11 (2021). We may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See I.R.C. § 7442; Ramey, 156 T.C. at 11. Where, as here, this Court's jurisdiction is duly challenged, our jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown by the party seeking to invoke that jurisdiction. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975). To meet this burden, the party "must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270. Further, it is well established that a court may proceed in a case only if it has jurisdiction and that the question of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, whether by the parties or this Court sua sponte. Charlotte's Office Boutique, Inc. v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 89, 102 (2003); Neely v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 287, 290 (2000).
In a deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition 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). Foster v. Commissioner, 445 F.2d 799 (10th Cir. 1971); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 n.4 (2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); 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).
Similarly, in a case challenging a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. I.R.C. section 6015(e)(1) specifically provides that the petition, to be timely, must be filed within 90 days of the notice of determination. "The 90-day filing deadline of section 6015(e)(1)(A) is jurisdictional." Frutiger v. Commissioner, No. 31153-21, 162 T.C., slip op. at 12 (Mar. 11, 2024). Furthermore, the Court has no authority to extend this 90-day period. See id.; Pollack v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 21, 32 (2009) ("[S]ection 6015(e)(1)(A)'s 90-day limit is jurisdictional and therefore doesn't allow for equitable tolling . . . .").
In this case, petitioner was issued a notice of deficiency for tax year 2017 on October 28, 2019. The 90th day after the date of mailing was Sunday, January 26, 2020; accordingly, the last date to file a timely petition as to the notice of deficiency was Monday, January 27, 2020, as printed on the notice. See I.R.C. § 6213(a). Further, by notice of determination dated and mailed May 25, 2022, respondent denied petitioner's request for section 6015 relief for his outstanding 2017 federal income tax liability. The 90th day after the date of mailing, and thus the last date to file a petition as to the notice of determination, was August 23, 2022.
The Court received and filed the Petition in this case on September 1, 2022. And, although a petition that is delivered to the Court after the expiration of time for filing shall be deemed timely if it bears a timely postmark, see I.R.C. § 7502, the Petition in this case was delivered to the Court in an envelope postmarked August 25, 2022. Consequently, the Petition was not timely filed with respect to either the notice of deficiency or the notice of determination, and we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
The premises considered, it is ORDERED that the Court's Order served April 26, 2023, is vacated and set aside. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike as to Petitioner's Disputed Notice of Deficiency, filed October 21, 2022, is granted, in that this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to the notice of deficiency. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 14, 2024, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by I.R.C. section 6015(e).