Opinion
9593-21S
05-15-2023
DOMINQUE P. GILBERT & TAMMY L. GILBERT, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
This case for the redetermination of deficiencies is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to the taxable year 2016. Petitioners oppose the motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction as to the taxable year 2016.
On December 10, 2018, respondent sent by certified mail a notice of deficiency for the taxable year 2016 to petitioners at their last known address. The notice is addressed to petitioners at an address within the United States and informs them that the last date to file a petition with the Tax Court is March 11, 2019.
On June 2, 2021, petitioners electronically filed the petition to commence this case. Among other things, petitioners therein seek review of the notice of deficiency issued to them for the taxable year 2016.
Petitioners also therein seek review of a notice of deficiency issued to them for the taxable year 2018. The petition was timely filed as to that notice.
A review of the Court's records shows that petitioners previously filed an untimely petition on June 7, 2019, at Docket No. 9459-19, seeking review of the notice issued to them for the taxable year 2016. Respondent thereafter filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, which petitioners did not oppose. On September 18, 2019, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed.
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 §§ 6212 and 6213; Rule 13(a) and (c); Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C., slip op. at 6 n.4 (collecting cases). A notice of deficiency generally will be deemed valid for this purpose if it is mailed to the taxpayer's last known address by certified or registered mail. See § 6212(a) and (b); Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 807 (1987). In order to be timely, a petition must be filed within 90 days (or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States) of the date on which the Commissioner mails a valid notice of deficiency. See § 6213(a); Estate of Cerrito v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 896, 898 (1980). We have no authority to extend this 90-day period. See Hallmark Research Collective, slip op. at 42; see also Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082, 1092-1095 (9th Cir. 2020).
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Because the notice of deficiency at issue was mailed to petitioners' last known address on December 10, 2018, the last date to file a petition with this Court as to that notice was March 11, 2019, as stated in the notice. The petition in this case was electronically filed on June 2, 2021. Consequently, the petition was not filed within the period prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code, and this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to the taxable year 2016.
The 90th day after the date of mailing was Sunday, March 10, 2019; however, section 6213(a) provides that Sunday is not counted as the last day of the 90-day period.
To the extent petitioners appear to object on the grounds of equitable and collateral estoppel to the dismissal of the taxable year 2016 from this case, we note that "as a Court of limited jurisdiction we may not apply equitable principles to take jurisdiction over a matter not authorized by statute." Plantier v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-134, 1993 WL 94086 at *5 (dismissing an untimely filed deficiency case for lack of jurisdiction; noting that "the doctrine of estoppel cannot create jurisdiction where none otherwise exists"); see also Odend'Hal v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 617, 624 (1990) (collecting cases).
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to 2016, filed September 24, 2021, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to the taxable year 2016. It is further
ORDERED that so much of this case relating to the taxable year 2016 is hereby deemed stricken from the Court's record in this case.