Opinion
11316-24L
09-05-2024
DONAVON EDWARDS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
KATHLEEN KERRIGAN CHIEF JUDGE
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed August 20, 2024. Therein respondent moves to dismiss this case on the grounds that no notice of determination concerning collection action was sent to petitioner for tax years 2020 or 2021, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to those tax years that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Respondent further asserts the Petition was not timely filed with respect to a notice of deficiency issued to petitioner for tax years 2020 and 2021. Petitioner opposes the granting of the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
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).
Our jurisdiction in the collection due process context depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination concerning collection action. See I.R.C. §§ 6320(c), 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000). There is no indication in the record that petitioner has been issued a notice of determination concerning collection action for tax years 2020 and 2021. Accordingly, we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction to the extent that it concerns such a notice of determination. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001).
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). Pugsley v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 691 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Allen v. Commissioner, 2022 WL 17825934 (11th Cir. 2022); 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).
A notice of deficiency regarding tax years 2020 and 2021 was sent by certified mail on November 7, 2023, to petitioner's last known address. The 90th day after November 7, 2023, was February 5, 2024, which day was not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday in the District of Columbia. The notice specified February 5, 2024, as the last day to petition this Court. However, respondent acknowledges that here, because petitioner was an affected taxpayer with respect to Tropical Storm Idalia, see I.R.C. § 7508A; Internal Revenue Service News Release FL-2023-06 (August 30, 2023), the time for filing the petition was extended to February 15, 2024. Petitioner electronically filed the Petition to commence this case on July 10, 2024. Consequently, the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code, and we lack jurisdiction with respect to the notice of deficiency issued to petitioner for tax years 2020 and 2021.
In his Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed September 3, 2024, petitioner asserts that he missed the filing deadline "due to the lack of communication from the IRS" and expresses his frustration with respondent's handling of his 2020 and 2021 tax years. However, the Court has no authority to extend that period provided by law for filing a petition, "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).
Because petitioner has failed to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction in this case, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may still pursue an administrative resolution of his 2020 and 2021 tax liabilities directly with the IRS. Another remedy potentially available to petitioner, if feasible, is to pay the determined amounts 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).
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.