Opinion
32400-21
06-20-2023
CHARLES F. HECKMAN & LINDA HECKMAN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On January 21, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6213(a) or 7502. Petitioners filed a Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Response) on November 3, 2022. However, petitioners' Response does not address the merits of respondent's Motion or dispute the jurisdictional allegations contained therein.
I.R.C. section 6213(a) 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 record reflects that a notice of deficiency for tax year 2018 was sent to petitioners' last known address by certified mail on April 12, 2021. The 90-day period for submitting a timely petition to the Court ended on July 12, 2021. The Petition arrived in an envelope postmarked October 12, 2021. The Court received and filed the Petition on October 18, 2021. Both the postmark and filing dates are beyond the 90-day filing period.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. See Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C., slip op. at 14 (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). The Court has no authority to extend the statutory period for submitting a timely petition in response to a deficiency notice. Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C., slip op. at 42; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). In this case, the Petition was not timely filed, and the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Although petitioners may not prosecute this case in the Tax Court, nothing precludes petitioners from continuing to pursue administrative resolution of their 2018 tax liability directly with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It also may be possible for petitioners to pay the tax, file a claim for refund with the IRS, and, if the claim is denied (or if no action thereon is taken within 6 months), sue for a refund in the appropriate Federal District Court or the United States Court of Federal Claims. See I.R.C. secs. 6532(a), 7422(a); 28 U.S.C. secs. 1346(a)(1), 1491(a)(1); McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 n.5 (1970).
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.