Opinion
10500-20L
01-06-2022
Michael Green Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
The petition underlying the above-docketed proceeding was filed on July 14, 2020, and an amended petition followed on November 12, 2020. Those pleadings indicated dispute with findings of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the 2015 and 2016 taxable years. Attached to the petition and amended petition, respectively, were copies of two IRS communications: (1) A notice of determination concerning collection action dated March 11, 2020, issued with respect to the 2015 tax year; and (2) a notice of deficiency dated December 18, 2019, issued with respect to the 2016 tax year.
Subsequently, on December 30, 2020, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Taxable Year 2016, on the ground that the petition as to 2016 was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). Respondent attached to the motion a copy of a certified mail list, as evidence of the fact that the notice of deficiency for 2016 had been sent to petitioner by certified mail on December 18, 2019.
As noted previously, the petition herein was filed with the Court on July 14, 2020, which date is 209 days after the date of the notice of deficiency for tax year 2016 mailed to petitioner. The petition had been received by the Court in an envelope that bears a postmark dated March 31, 2020, which date is 104 days after the date of the notice. Additionally, the petition had been sent by certified mail, and U.S. Postal Service (USPS) tracking information for the number shown on the envelope is consistent in reflecting March 31, 2020, as the first entry, labeled "USPS in possession of item".
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 seeking the 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 and Procedure; Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982). In this regard, section 6213(a), I.R.C., provides that the petition must be filed with the Court within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). The Court has no authority to extend this 90-day (or 150-day) period. Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, a petition shall be treated as timely filed if it is filed on or before the last date specified in such notice for the filing of a Tax Court petition, a provision which becomes relevant where that date is later than the date computed with reference to the mailing date. Sec. 6213(a), I.R.C. Likewise, if the conditions of section 7502, I.R.C., are satisfied, a petition which is timely mailed may be treated as having been timely filed.
In the present case, the time for filing a petition with this Court as to 2016 expired on March 17, 2020. However, the petition was not filed within that period.
Petitioner was served with a copy of respondent's motion to dismiss and, on February 1, 2021, filed a letter in objection. Therein, petitioner did not directly deny the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion and detailed as follows regarding timeliness:
I am one who keeps very busy even though I am now retired, I often put things off until the last minute, as I did this letter. I sent a Petition in regarding the Notice of Deficiency for 2016 very close to the end of
the 90-day period, which would have made it in on time or before the March 17, 2020 deadline, but the Tax Court was closed on March 16, 2020, due to the Corona Virus lockdown, until further notice. That is why my petition was untimely.
Petitioner also reiterated his position regarding owing no taxes for the 2016 year and pointed out that he had sent various letters in rebuttal thereof to the IRS, including one dated November 19, 2019, of which a copy was attached.
As to petitioner's comments about the sending of the petition, suffice it to mention several factual inaccuracies. First, the Court did not close on account of COVID-19 precautions until the evening of March 18, 2020, and was open and operational until that time, including on the March 17, 2020, due date for a petition. Additionally, the petition was postmarked March 31, 2020, a full two weeks after the March 17, 2020, deadline.
As to petitioner's emphasis on his letters to the IRS, the response shows that, before and/or after receiving the notice of deficiency, efforts were made to communicate with and to submit information to the IRS. The law is well settled, however, that once a notice of deficiency has been issued, further administrative contact or consideration does not alter or suspend the running of the 90-day period. Even confusing correspondence, written or verbal, during the administrative process cannot override the clearly stated deadline in the statutory notice of deficiency. Such confusion is not uncommon given that the IRS frequently treats as separate processes or proceedings what taxpayers view as a single dispute. Taxpayers not infrequently have also conflated this Court with an IRS unit, but the IRS is a completely separate and independent entity from the Tax Court.
Although section 7502, I.R.C., allows a timely mailed petition to be treated as timely filed, that section mandates that the envelope bearing the petition be Aproperly addressed to the agency, officer, or office with which the document is required to be filed.@. Sec. 7502(a)(2)(B), I.R.C. A petition seeking redetermination of a deficiency must be filed with this Court and not the IRS. Sec. 6213(a), I.R.C. Hence, the mailing (or faxing) of a petition, correspondence, or other documentation to the IRS is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256 (1972). The statute is clear, and this Court must follow it. Estate of Cerrito v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 896 (1980). The Court would also note that a notice of deficiency issued to a taxpayer states on its face the last day to petition the Tax Court (not the IRS) and provides expressly in multiple places that the filing period extends 90 days from the date of the letter. The first page of the notice is likewise explicit in providing that petitions must be filed with the U.S. Tax Court and in giving the Court's address as A400 Second Street, NW, Washington, DC 20217@. With these clear rules regarding the inefficacy of written correspondence to the IRS, it is clear that efforts to contact the IRS by phone can offer no greater protection.
Moreover, here it should be noted that petitioner's remarks, particularly in the attached November 19, 2019, letter, proffered oft-rejected challenges to the authority of the IRS in the context of income tax returns and related assessments. Thus, under the circumstances, the Court sees no need to catalog petitioner's arguments and painstakingly address them. As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has remarked: "We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit". Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).
Thus, while the Court may understand the potentially unintentional character of the inadvertence here, as well as challenges imposed by petitioner's personal circumstances, the fundamental nature of the filing deadline precludes the case from going forward as to 2016. As a Court of limited jurisdiction, the Court is unable to offer any remedy or assistance when a petition is filed late. Rather, the Court is barred from considering in any way petitioner's case or the correctness of petitioner's claims regarding 2016. Unfortunately, governing law recognizes no reasonable cause, good faith, or other applicable exception to the statutory deadline.
The Court has no authority to extend that 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, since petitioner has failed to establish that the petition as to 2016 was mailed or filed within the required period, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to that year. The case will, however, continue as to 2015, and petitioner will have an opportunity to present evidence with respect to any the notice of determination for 2015. As to 2016, petitioner may wish to consider continuing to try to work administratively through the IRS, which, being entirely separate from the Tax Court, may be able to offer alternative avenues for relief for 2016, such as audit reconsideration or a refund action.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Taxable Year 2016 is granted. This case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to taxable year 2016, and references to that year in the amended petition are deemed stricken.