Opinion
13797-22S
01-04-2023
ARNOLD KLEIN & SARA KLEIN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
KATHLEEN KERRIGAN CHIEF JUDGE
On June 7, 2022, petitioners filed the petition seeking relief as to tax year 2019. Petitioners did not attach a notice of deficiency for tax year 2019 to the petition.
On August 4, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that no notice of deficiency or notice of determination had been sent to petitioners with respect to tax year 2019, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioners' tax year 2019 that would confer jurisdiction on the Court, prior to petitioners' filing the petition.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition by the taxpayer. Rule 13(a) and (c); Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. & Normac International v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). In this regard, 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). If a petition is timely mailed, it will be considered timely filed. See I.R.C. sec. 7502(a) (1). In order for the timely mailing/timely filing provision to apply, the envelope containing the petition must be properly addressed to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C., and bear a postmark with a date that is on or before the last date for timely filing a petition. See I.R.C. sec. 7502(a)(2). The Court has no authority to extend this 90 day (or 150 day) period. Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960).
On August 22, 2022, petitioners filed a Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack Jurisdiction. In their Response, petitioners do not dispute the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion. Petitioners state that the instructions were confusing.
On September 7, 2022, respondent filed a status report in which he states that after petitioners filed the petition in this case, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioners for their 2019 tax year on June 27, 2022, and on August 5, 2022, petitioners timely filed a petition as to that notice at Docket No. 17896-22S.
The record reflects and petitioners do not dispute that the notice of deficiency for petitioners' 2019 tax year was issued after the petition in this case was filed. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction over petitioners' 2019 tax year under the petition filed in this case. Accordingly, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
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.