Opinion
12229-21
12-15-2021
Elizabeth L. Lawson Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
On June 23, 2021, petitioner electronically filed the petition to commence this case, seeking review of notices of deficiency issued for her 2017 and 2018 tax years. Petitioner attached to the petition a copy of the notice of deficiency for petitioner's 2017 tax year, dated January 6, 2020, and a copy of the notice of deficiency for petitioner's 2018 tax year, dated March 29, 2021.
On October 21, 2021, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike as to the Taxable Year 2017 on the ground that, as to the notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2017 tax year, the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code. Respondent's motion does not seek dismissal as to petitioner's claims in connection with the notice of deficiency for petitioner's 2018 tax year. On November 1, 2021, petitioner filed an Opposition to Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
The Tax 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 addition, jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a taxpayer invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the taxpayer's case. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960).
In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice of Procedure; Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). In this regard, and as relevant here, Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6213(a) provides that the petition must be filed with the Court within 90 days after a valid 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 and properly addressed to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C., 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 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). If the postmark is missing or illegible, a taxpayer may present extrinsic evidence to prove the date of mailing. See Anderson v. U.S., 966 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1992); Mason v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 354 (1977). The notice of deficiency is sufficient if mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. I.R.C. sec. 6212(b). The statute does not require that respondent prove delivery or actual receipt of the notice of deficiency. See Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 33 (1989).
The record in this case reflects that the notice of deficiency for tax year 2017 was sent to petitioner's last known address by certified mail on or about January 8, 2020. Based on that mailing date, the last day to timely file a petition with the Court as to the notice of deficiency for 2017 was April 7, 2020. As mentioned above, petitioner electronically filed the petition to commence this case on June 23, 2021. That filing date is well after the last day petitioner could timely file a petition with respect to the notice of deficiency for 2017.
Petitioner's opposition to respondent's motion fails to address respondent's jurisdictional allegations with respect to the notice of deficiency for 2017. Rather, petitioner contends that, as the facts underlying the deficiency for petitioner's 2017 tax year are related to the facts underlying the deficiency for petitioner's 2018 tax year, the Court should not dismiss this case as to petitioner's 2017 tax year.
Despite petitioner's arguments, however, the record establishes that the petition in this case as to petitioner's 2017 tax year was not timely filed and thus we lack jurisdiction concerning petitioner's 2017 tax year. While the Court is sympathetic to petitioner's circumstances, we have no authority to extend the period for timely filing the petition "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). However, although petitioner may not prosecute this case in the Tax Court, petitioner may continue to pursue administrative resolution of the 2017 tax liability directly with the IRS.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced motion is granted and so much of this case relating to petitioner's 2017 tax year is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and deemed stricken from the Court's record. Petitioner is advised that her claims with respect to the notice of deficiency issued for her 2018 tax year remain pending before the Court.