Opinion
9984-21S
01-31-2022
DEBORAH JOY TERRY HARPOLE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge.
Pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed July 16, 2021. Therein, respondent requests that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code. By Order served August 9, 2021, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to the Motion to Dismiss.
On August 30, 2021, the Court received and filed a Letter Dated August 17, 2021, by petitioner. Attached to the Letter is a copy of the Court's Order served August 9, 2021. In view of the foregoing, we will recharacterize petitioner's Letter as an Objection to respondent's Motion to Dismiss and treat it as such.
For the reasons set forth below, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
The Petition in this case was filed on March 29, 2021, in response to a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015.Attached to the Petition is a copy of the foregoing determination, a Final Determination letter dated August 21, 2020, granting petitioner "full relief" under section 6015 for the 2013 taxable year. The Final Determination states that, if petitioner disagrees with the determination set forth therein, she may file a petition with the Tax Court but must do so within 90 days from the date of the letter (i.e., November 19, 2020). The Petition arrived at the Court in an envelope bearing a postmark of March 23, 2021.
All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Discussion
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. See I.R.C. § 7442; Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230, 235 (2016). Where, as here, this Court's jurisdiction is duly challenged, our jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown by the party seeking to invoke that jurisdiction. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975). To meet this burden, the party "must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270.
In a case based upon a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015(e), the jurisdiction of this Court depends, in part, upon the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. See I.R.C. § 6015(e)(1)(A); Rule 320(b); see also Nauflett v. Commissioner, 892 F.3d 649 (4th Cir. 2018); Matuszak v. Commissioner, 862 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2017); Rubel v. Commissioner, 856 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2017); Pollock v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 21 (2009); Gormeley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-52. Our jurisdiction under section 6015(e) also depends, in part, upon the issuance of a final determination by the IRS under that section or the failure by the IRS to issue such a determination within six months after a request for innocent spouse relief has been filed or made. See I.R.C. § 6015(e)(1)(A). Where, as here, a final determination has been issued, the petition must be filed with the Tax Court within 90 days of the date on which the Commissioner mails the final determination to the taxpayer's last known address. Id. However, under certain circumstances, a timely mailed petition may be treated as though it were timely filed. See I.R.C. § 7502; Treas. Reg. § 301.7502-1.
In his Motion to Dismiss, respondent asserts that he has attached, as Exhibit A, a certified mail list showing that the Final Determination was sent by certified mail on August 21, 2020, to petitioner's last known address. A review of the foregoing document establishes that respondent sent the Final Determination to petitioner by certified mail on August 21, 2020, to the address in Nyssa, Oregon, listed therein. Petitioner has not disputed that the Final Determination was sent to her last known address. We therefore take it as established.
A properly completed certified mail list, like a U.S. Postal Service Form 3877, is direct evidence of both the fact and date of mailing and, in the absence of contrary evidence, is sufficient to establish proper mailing. See Clough v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 183, 187-191 (2002); Stein v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-378; see also Keado v. United States, 853 F.2d 1209, 1213 (5th Cir. 1988); United States v. Zolla, 724 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1984); Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82, 91 (1990). The document attached as Exhibit A to respondent's Motion to Dismiss appears to be properly completed and bears sufficient indicia of authenticity. Finding no evidence to the contrary, we accept the foregoing document as presumptive proof of its contents.
In view of the fact that the Final Determination was mailed to petitioner's last known address on August 21, 2020, the last date to file a petition with this Court was November 19, 2020. As noted above, the Petition in this case was filed on March 29, 2021. And, although a petition that is delivered to the Court after the expiration of the period provided by section 6015(e)(1)(A) shall be deemed timely if it bears a timely postmark, see I.R.C. § 7502, the envelope in which the Petition was mailed to the Court bears a postmark of March 23, 2021. Consequently, the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code.
Based on a review of petitioner's Objection, it appears that she believes that she was given only 45 days to file a petition with this Court in response to the Final Determination. However, as noted above, the relevant filing period under section 6015(e)(1)(A) is 90 days. Additionally, the Objection does not deny the relevant facts underlying the jurisdictional allegations in the Motion to Dismiss; rather, the Objection is primarily directed toward challenging the fairness of the tax laws as applied to petitioner's case. While the Court is sympathetic to petitioner's circumstances, governing law recognizes no exceptions for good cause or similar grounds that would allow petitioner to proceed in this judicial forum. This Court has no authority to extend the 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, as petitioner has failed to "establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction", David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270, we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Letter Dated August 17, 2021, is recharacterized as petitioner's Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.