Opinion
21260-21
07-16-2024
JAMIL HASSAN KARRIEM, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Jennifer E. Siegel, Special Trial Judge.
This deficiency case was commenced by Petition filed September 2, 2021, in response to a Notice of Deficiency (notice) issued June 3, 2021. The last day to timely file a petition in response to the notice was September 1, 2021. § 6213(a).The Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing the parties to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground the Petition was not timely filed. Respondent agreed that it was not. Petitioner claimed that he never received the notice, which we interpret as a challenge to its validity. It is clear the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case; the issue presented is the basis of the Court's dismissal.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
As has been said many times before, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). We have jurisdiction to determine our jurisdiction. See Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984); Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984).
The Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on both the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); see also 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). Here, petitioner claims he didn't receive the notice.
Actual receipt of a notice of deficiency is not required, but only if the Internal Revenue Service properly mailed the notice to the taxpayer's last known address. King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 679 (9th Cir. 1988), aff'g 88 T.C. 1042 (1987); Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 810 (1987); see also Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1032 (1988) (holding that a taxpayer's last known address is the address shown on the taxpayer's most recently filed Federal income tax return); Treas. Reg. § 301.6212-2.
The address on the certified mail list provided by respondent did not match the address on petitioner's most recently filed and properly processed return. Moreover, the tracking information provided by respondent does not show that the notice was delivered. Because the certified mail list and tracking information do not demonstrate proof of mailing to petitioner's last known address, we are obligated to dismiss this case on the ground that the notice was invalid. See Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82, 90 (1990) (explaining that respondent bears the burden of proving proper mailing of the notice of deficiency).
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause served October 12, 2022, is discharged. It is further
ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground the Notice of Deficiency was invalid. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Default and Dismissal, filed July 20, 2023, is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's oral Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as moot.