Opinion
12784-21
01-31-2022
JAMIE BENAVIDEZ FERRER & LAUREANO R. CAYANAN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge.
Pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed July 27, 2021. Therein, respondent requests that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code. By Order served August 9, 2021, the Court directed petitioners to file an objection, if any, to the Motion to Dismiss. On August 27, 2021, petitioners filed such an Objection.
For the reasons set forth below, we will grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
By Notice of Deficiency dated November 23, 2020, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' federal income tax for the 2018 taxable year. The Notice states that the last date to petition the Tax Court is February 22, 2021. On April 9, 2021, the Court received and filed petitioners' Petition seeking redetermination of the foregoing deficiency. The Petition arrived at the Court in an envelope bearing a postmark of April 7, 2021.
Discussion
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. See I.R.C. § 7442; Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230, 235 (2016). 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.
In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, as here, our jurisdiction depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. See I.R.C. §§ 6212, 6213, and 6214; Rule 13(a) and (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989). A notice of deficiency generally will be deemed valid for this purpose if it is mailed to the taxpayer at his last known address. See I.R.C. § 6212(b); Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 736 (1989), aff'd, 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991); Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 52 (1983). In order to be timely, a petition generally must be filed within 90 days of the date on which the Commissioner mails a valid notice of deficiency. See I.R.C. § 6213(a); Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982). We have no authority to extend this 90-day period. See Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960); see also Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082, 1093-1095 (9th Cir. 2020). However, under certain circumstances, a timely mailed petition may be treated as though it were timely filed. See I.R.C. § 7502; Treas. Reg. § 301.7502-1.
All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times.
If the notice of deficiency is addressed to a person outside the United States, a petition must be filed within 150 days of the mailing of the notice. See I.R.C. § 6213(a); Smith v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. 48 (2013); Lewy v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 779 (1977). There is no indication in the record-nor have petitioners asserted, after having been given an opportunity to do so-that they were outside the United States at or about the time that the Notice of Deficiency in this case was mailed.
In his Motion to Dismiss, respondent asserts that he has attached, as Exhibit A, a U.S. Postal Service Form 3877 showing that the Notice of Deficiency was sent by certified mail on November 23, 2020, to petitioners' last known address. A review of the foregoing document establishes that respondent sent the Notice of Deficiency to petitioners by certified mail on November 23, 2020, to the address in Oxnard, California, listed therein. Petitioners have not disputed that the Notice of Deficiency was sent to their last known address. We therefore take it as established.
A properly completed U.S. Postal Service Form 3877 (or its equivalent) is direct evidence of both the fact and date of mailing and, in the absence of contrary evidence, is sufficient to establish proper mailing of the notice of deficiency. See Clough v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 183, 187-191 (2002); Stein v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-378; see also Keado v. United States, 853 F.2d 1209, 1213 (5th Cir. 1988); United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984); Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82, 91 (1990). The document attached as Exhibit A to respondent's Motion to Dismiss appears to be properly completed and bears sufficient indicia of authenticity, such as a U.S. Postal Service postmark date of November 23, 2020. Finding no evidence to the contrary, we accept the foregoing document as presumptive proof of its contents.
In view of the fact that the Notice of Deficiency was mailed to petitioners' last known address on November 23, 2020, the last date to file a petition with this Court was February 22, 2021, as stated in the Notice of Deficiency. As noted above, the Petition in this case was filed on April 9, 2021. And, although a petition that is delivered to the Court after the expiration of the period provided by section 6213(a) shall be deemed timely if it bears a timely postmark, see I.R.C. § 7502, the envelope in which the Petition was mailed to the Court bears a postmark of April 7, 2021. Consequently, the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by sections 6213(a) and 7502.
In their Objection petitioners acknowledge that the due date for filing a petition was February 22, 2021, as stated in the Notice of Deficiency. However, petitioners note that they faced certain complications due to the COVID-19 pandemic and request that the Court take those complications into account in considering this matter.
Although the COVID-19 pandemic did lead to the extension of certain tax-related filing deadlines, including the deadline for filing a petition with the Tax Court, the circumstances of this case fall outside the relief afforded. Specifically, the Court's decision in Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 320 (2016), together with IRS Notice 2020-23, 2020-18 I.R.B. 742 (Apr. 27, 2020), extended to July 15, 2020, the deadline for filing petitions with due dates between March 19, 2020, and July 15, 2020. However, in this case the due date for filing a petition with the Court was February 22, 2021. Accordingly, the foregoing authority had no effect on the due date, and the Petition was untimely even after accounting for the extensions granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
While the Court is sympathetic to petitioners' circumstances, governing law recognizes no exceptions for good cause or similar grounds that would allow petitioners to proceed in this judicial forum. As noted above, the Court has no authority to extend the 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). Accordingly, as petitioners have failed to "establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction", David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270, we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
However, we note that, while petitioners may not prosecute this case in the Tax Court, they may continue to pursue administrative resolution of the 2018 tax liability with the IRS. Another remedy potentially available to petitioners, if feasible, is to pay the determined amount and thereafter file a claim for refund with the IRS. If the claim is denied or not acted upon after six months, petitioners 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 of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.