Opinion
5300-24
09-18-2024
CHRISTIAN HINZ, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
The petition in the above-docketed matter was filed on April 1, 2024, and 2021 was referenced as the taxable year in dispute. Attached to the petition was a notice of deficiency dated October 30, 2023, issued to petitioner with respect to the 2021 taxable year. An answer to the petition followed on May 23, 2024, but did not address jurisdictional matters.
Thereafter, and unexpectedly given the state of the record, the parties on August 7, 2024, submitted a stipulated decision resolving the case. Nonetheless, review continued to suggest a fundamental jurisdictional defect that would prevent entry of the just-referenced decision. At that juncture, the Court by Order served August 8, 2024, directed the parties, on or before August 28, 2024, to show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that the petition was not mailed to or filed with the Tax Court within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). The Order also noted that the date of the notice of deficiency underlying this proceeding indicated a statutory deadline for filing a petition pursuant to section 6213(a), I.R.C., that expired on January 29, 2024. Conversely, the envelope in which the petition was received bore postage dated March 29, 2024.
On August 27, 2024, and apparently in lieu of a response to the Court's Order, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the same ground of an untimely petition. Therein, respondent confirmed, and provided supporting documentation in the form of a certified mail list to establish, that the notice of deficiency was mailed on October 30, 2023. Respondent also addressed the inapplicability of disaster relief to render the petition timely. (The Court notes that it is immaterial in this regard whether the Court considers the Florida address to which the notice of deficiency was sent or the California address of petitioner at the time the petition in this case was filed.) Respondent further concurred that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. To date, no response has been received from petitioner.
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. Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082, 1092 (9th Cir. 2020); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982); see Sanders v. Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 161 T.C., slip op. at 7-8 (Nov. 2, 2023) (holding that the Court will continue treating the deficiency deadline as jurisdictional in cases appealable to jurisdictions outside the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit). 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. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. at 166-67; 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.
A petition is ordinarily "filed" when it is received by the Tax Court in Washington, D.C. See, e.g., Leventis v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 353, 354 (1968). Although the Court may sit at any place within the United States, its principal office, its mailing address, and its Clerk's office are in the District of Columbia. Sec. 7445, I.R.C.; Rule 10, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. And a document that is electronically filed with the Court is filed when it is received by the Court as determined in reference to where the Court is located. Nutt v. Commissioner, 160 T.C. 470 (2023).
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order To Show Cause, served August 8, 2024, is hereby made absolute. It is further
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 section 6213(a), I.R.C.