Opinion
8445-22S
02-14-2023
KATHLEEN E. FALKOWSKI & STANISLAS A. STEMPAK, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Adam B. Landy Special Trial Judge
A petition commencing this case was filed on April 8, 2022. Petitioners seek review of the notice of deficiency (notice) dated January 3, 2022, and issued to them for 2019. Attached to the petition is a copy of that notice, which states the last day for filing a timely Tax Court petition as to that notice would expire on April 4, 2022. The petition arrived at the Court on April 8, 2022, in a United States Postal Service (USPS) Priority Mail Express envelope postmarked April 7, 2022.
The Court issued an Order to Show Cause served on December 20, 2022, seeking the parties' positions as to why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground the petition was not timely filed. Although the Court directed petitioners to file a response to the Order to Show Cause, petitioners have failed to do so. On January 26, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Respondent attached a complete copy of the notice and a certified mailing list on PS Form 3877 showing the notice was mailed on January 3, 2022. Respondent stated in the motion that petitioners do not object to the Court granting the motion.
This 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 petitioners invoking our jurisdiction bear the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the petitioners' 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 the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the petitioners. Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. No. 6 (Nov. 29, 2022); Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982); Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. In this regard, Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6213(a) provides that the petition must be filed with the Court within 90 days after the notice 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 Court in Washington, D.C., it will be considered timely filed. See § 7502(a)(1). 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 day for timely filing a petition. See § 7502(a)(2).
The record reflects that respondent mailed a notice for 2019, on January 3, 2022. The 90-day period for filing a timely petition with the Court expired on April 4, 2022, which date was not a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia. The Court only has jurisdiction if the petition was mailed using the USPS within the 90-day period beginning January 3, 2022 and ending April 4, 2022. See § 6213(a). The petition arrived at the Court in an envelope with a postmark dated April 7, 2022. The Court concludes that petitioners did not timely file a petition in this case, and therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency for 2019.
Upon due consideration of respondent's motion and for cause, it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause, served December 20, 2022, is discharged. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed January 26, 2023, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground the petition was not timely filed.