Opinion
4826-21S
10-04-2021
Michael Earl Gooden Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley, Chief Judge
On June 14, 2021, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground the petition was not filed timely as to the Final Determination concerning petitioner's claim for spousal relief for tax year 2016. On July 16, 2021, petitioner filed his Objection to respondent's motion to dismiss. On August 13, 2021, respondent filed a Response to petitioner's objection. On August 18, 2021, respondent filed a First Supplement to his response. On September 17, 2021, petitioner filed a Reply to respondent's response, as supplemented.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In this case, the Court's jurisdiction depends on whether the taxpayer filed the petition no later than the 90th day after the date on which the respondent mailed by certified or registered mail, a notice of determination disallowing petitioner's request for relief from joint and several liability on a joint return for 2016. See I.R.C. sec. 6015(e)(1); Rule 320(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Court has no authority to extend the 90-day period. Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960).
Respondent attached to his August 13, 2021, Response as Exhibit A, a copy of a postmarked Certified Mail List as evidence that on November 22, 2019 respondent mailed to petitioner's last known address a Final Determination concerning petitioner's spousal relief claim for taxable year 2016 by certified mail. The record establishes that the petition was filed on February 17, 2021, a date 453 days after respondent mailed the final determination. Here, the 90-day period by which petitioner had to file the petition expired on February 20, 2021. The petition, filed February 17, 2021, arrived at the Court in an envelope bearing a United Postal Service Priority Mail 1-Day label dated February 12, 2021. That petition was also signed and dated by petitioner as of January 2, 2021
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 a case based on a notice of determination that disallows a request for relief from joint and several liability on a joint return, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Sec. 6015(e), I.R.C.; Rule 320(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. In this regard, I.R.C. section 6015(e) specifically provides that, in order for the Court to have jurisdiction to review a determination regarding a request for relief from joint and several liability (innocent spouse relief), the petition must be filed after the earlier of(1) the date which is six months after the date the taxpayer makes a request for innocent spouse relief, or (2) the date a final determination is mailed to the taxpayer, provided such petition is filed within 90 days after that date of mailing. The Court has no authority to extend this 90-day period. However, if the conditions of I.R.C. section 7502 are satisfied, a petition which is timely mailed may be treated as having been timely filed.
On July 16, 2021, petitioner filed his Objection to respondent's motion to dismiss. On September 17, 2021, petitioner filed his Reply to respondent's response, as supplemented. In them, petitioner asserts that he never received the final determination for 2016 in a timely manner.
As mentioned above, the 90-day period commences with the date that the notice of determination is mailed to the taxpayer. While the Court is sympathetic to petitioner's situation, the Court has no authority to extend the period for filing a timely petition. Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). Accordingly, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed June 14, 2021, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.