Opinion
18827-23
01-30-2024
CHRISTOPHER RYAN DOLL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.
On January 9, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. Respondent attached to the motion a copy of the certified mail list as evidence of the fact that the notice of deficiency was sent to petitioner by certified mail on August 10, 2023.
The petition was filed on November 27, 2023, which date is 109 days after the date the notice of deficiency for tax year 2022 was mailed to petitioner. The petition was received by the Court in an envelope bearing a United States Postal Service postmark of November 20, 2023, which date is 102 days after the date the notice of deficiency for tax year 2022 was mailed to petitioner. Attached to the petition is a copy of the deficiency notice issued for 2022, which states that the last day for filing a timely Tax Court petition as to that notice would expire on November 13, 2023.
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a taxpayer invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the taxpayer's case. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960). 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). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; 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).
In the present case, the time for filing a petition with this Court expired on November 13, 2023. However, the petition was not filed within that 90 day period.
On January 29, 2023, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. In his objection, petitioner does not dispute the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion. Instead, petitioner argues the merits of his case.
The record in this case establishes that the Petition was not timely filed and, accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. We have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 167; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may still pursue an administrative resolution of petitioner's 2022 tax liability directly with the IRS.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 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 6213(a).