Opinion
17151-23S
01-18-2024
JESSE R. GRIFFIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On October 31, 2023, at 12:23 a.m. Eastern Time, petitioner Jesse R. Griffis filed the Petition to commence this case. On November 30, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) §6213(a). Although the Court provided petitioner the opportunity to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion, petitioner has not done so.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 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 deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition 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). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Andrews v. Commissioner, 563 F.2d 365 (8th Cir. 1977); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). In order to be timely, an electronically filed petition must be filed by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. See Nutt v. Commissioner, 160 T.C. (May 2, 2023).
The record in this case establishes that the Petition was not electronically filed by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on October 30, 2023, which was the last day to timely file a Petition. The Court is therefore obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. However, although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may still pursue an administrative resolution of the 2021 tax liability directly with the Internal Revenue Service.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by I.R.C. §6213(a).