Opinion
11329-20S
03-30-2022
ROGER PAUL GANSER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley, Chief Judge
On August 4, 2020, this Court which is separate and independent from the IRS, received from petitioner and filed the petition to commence this case. Petitioner indicates in the petition that he seeks review of a notice of deficiency issued for his 2014 tax year. Petitioner did not attach any notice of deficiency to his petition. On November 4, 2020, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code. On March 10, 2022, petitioner filed a Letter Dated March 4, 2022, in response to respondent's motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2022, respondent filed a First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, attaching thereto a copy of the notice of deficiency on which this case is based along with a certified mail list showing the date the notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioner.
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. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice of Procedure; Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). 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 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). When a notice of deficiency is mailed prior to the date shown on that notice, the taxpayer may use the date of the notice in determining the last date to file a petition. Loyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-172. 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. sec. 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. sec. 7502(a)(2). If the postmark is missing or illegible, a taxpayer may present extrinsic evidence to prove the date of mailing. See Anderson v. U.S., 966 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1992); Mason v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 354 (1977). The notice of deficiency is sufficient if mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. I.R.C. sec. 6212(b). 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).
The record in this case reflects that a notice of deficiency for tax year 2014 was sent to petitioner's last known address by certified mail on April 4, 2016. Based on that mailing date, the last day to timely file a petition with the Court was July 13, 2016. Additionally, the notice of deficiency stated that the last date to file a petition with the Tax Court was July 13, 2016. As discussed above, the Court received and filed the petition on August 4, 2020. The petition was received in an envelope bearing a postmark date of July 29, 2020. Both the filing and mailing dates are several years after the last date petitioner could timely file a petition with respect to the notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2014 tax year.
In his response, petitioner provides details of his attempts to resolve the issues concerning his 2014 tax year with the IRS. Petitioner does not address respondent's jurisdictional allegations. Petitioner also appears to indicate in his response that the 2014 tax liability has now been paid.
The record establishes that the petition in this case was not timely filed. This Court has no authority to extend the period for timely filing a Tax Court 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). However, although petitioner may not prosecute this case in the Tax Court, if the issues involving petitioner's 2014 tax liability have not been fully resolved, petitioner may continue to pursue administrative resolution of the 2014 tax liability directly with the IRS.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.