Opinion
6671-22
08-29-2023
STEFANIE HUGHES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
This case for the redetermination of deficiencies is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Petitioner opposes the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
On August 23, 2021, and October 4, 2021, respondent sent two Notices of Deficiency to petitioner's last known address. The Notices were sent by certified mail and determined deficiencies in petitioner's federal income tax for the taxable years 2018 and 2019, respectively. The Notices were addressed to petitioner at an address within the United States and informed her that the last dates to file a petition with this Court were November 22, 2021, and January 3, 2022, respectively.
On March 14, 2022, the Court received and filed the Petition to commence this case. The Petition, which seeks redetermination of the aforementioned deficiencies, was delivered to the Court in an envelope bearing a United States Postal Service postmark date of March 8, 2022.
In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, as here, our jurisdiction depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. See §§ 6212 and 6213; Rule 13(a) and (c); Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2020); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 & n.4 (2022) (collecting cases). Generally, a notice of deficiency will be deemed valid for this purpose if it is sent to the taxpayer's last known address by certified or registered mail. See § 6212(a) and (b); Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 807 (1987). In order to be timely, a petition must be filed within 90 days (or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States) of the date on which the Commissioner mails a valid notice of deficiency. See § 6213(a); Estate of Cerrito v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 896, 898 (1980). We have no authority to extend this 90-day period. See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 166-67. However, under certain circumstances, a timely mailed petition may be treated as though it were timely filed. See § 7502; Treas. Reg. § 301.7502-1.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Because the Notice of Deficiency for 2018 was mailed to petitioner's last known address on August 23, 2021, the last date to file a petition with this Court as to that Notice was November 22, 2021. Because the Notice of Deficiency for 2019 was mailed to petitioner's last known address on October 4, 2021, the last date to file a petition with this Court as to that Notice was January 3, 2022.
The 90th day after the date of mailing was Sunday, November 21, 2021; however, section 6213(a) provides that Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays in the District of Columbia are not counted as the last day of the 90-day period. Hence, the last date to file a petition as to the Notice of Deficiency for 2018 was November 22, 2021.
Because the 90th day after the date of mailing was Sunday, January 2, 2022, the last date to file a petition as to the Notice of Deficiency for 2019 was January 3, 2022. See supra n.2.
As noted above, the Petition in this case, challenging both Notices, was filed on March 14, 2022. And, although a petition that is delivered to the Court after the expiration of time provided by section 6213(a) shall be deemed timely if it bears a timely postmark, see § 7502, the Petition in this case was delivered to the Court in an envelope bearing a postmark date of March 8, 2022. Consequently, the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code with respect to either Notice, and this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
We are sympathetic to petitioner's circumstances. But we have no authority to extend the time for filing a petition for redetermination of a deficiency "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). Nevertheless, while petitioner cannot pursue her case in this Court, she may continue to pursue administrative resolution of the 2018 and 2019 tax liabilities with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Another remedy potentially available to petitioner, if feasible, is to pay the determined amount and thereafter file a claim for refund with the IRS. If that claim is denied (or not acted upon after six months), petitioner may file a suit for refund in the appropriate U.S. District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 n.5 (1970).
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed May 23, 2022, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.