Opinion
3379-24
05-23-2024
ANISHA MOORE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
Currently pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss), filed April 30, 2024, on the grounds that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On May 21, 2024, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
The record reflects that a notice of deficiency for petitioner's 2021 tax year was sent by certified mail to petitioner's last known address (the same address petitioner used when filing the Petition) on September 11, 2023. The notice of deficiency stated that the last day to file a Petition with the Tax Court was December 11, 2023. The Petition to commence this case was received and filed February 27, 2024.
Like all federal courts, the Tax 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 addition, 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 case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a Petition by the taxpayer. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); 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 this regard, and as relevant here, Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) 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 a valid notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). If a Petition is timely mailed and properly addressed to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C., it will be considered timely filed. See I.R.C. §7502(a)(1). In order for the timely mailing/timely filing provision to apply, the envelope containing the Petition must bear a postmark with a date that is on or before the last date for timely filing a petition. See I.R.C. §7502(a)(2).
The notice of deficiency is sufficient if mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. I.R.C. §6212(b). Absent clear and concise notification to the IRS of a different address, a taxpayer's last known address is the address appearing on the taxpayer's most recently filed and properly processed tax return. Treas. Reg. §301.6212-2(a); King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 1988), aff'g 88 T.C. 1042 (1987). The taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the notice of deficiency was not sent to the taxpayer's last known address. Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 808 (1987). The statute does not require that respondent prove delivery or actual receipt of the notice of deficiency. See Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 33 (1989).
Based upon the mailing date of September 11, 2023, the 90-day period to timely file a Tax Court petition expired December 11, 2023. As discussed above, the Court received and filed the Petition on February 27, 2024. The Petition was received in an envelope bearing a postmark dated February 21, 2024.
In the Petition and objection to the motion to dismiss, petitioner concedes that the notice of deficiency was mailed to her last known address but also indicates that the notice was not actually received until after the last day to file a petition. Petitioner thus objects to the granting of respondent's motion to dismiss. However, as noted above, the statute does not require proof of delivery or actual receipt of the notice of deficiency.
The record establishes that the Petition was not timely filed, and the Court is therefore obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. While we are sympathetic to petitioner's circumstances, we have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, although petitioner may not prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may be able to continue to pursue an administrative resolution of the 2021 tax liability directly with the IRS. Also, another remedy available to petitioner, if feasible, is to pay the determined amounts, file a claim for refund with the IRS, and then (if the claim is denied or not acted on for six months), bring a suit for refund in the appropriate Federal 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 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 Internal Revenue Code section 6213(a).