Opinion
4773-22
06-28-2023
CHAD D. LUCKS & CATHERINE M. LUCKS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Ronald L. Buch, Judge
Before us is the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) . A petitioner has ninety days from the mailing of the notice of deficiency to file a petition with the Tax Court for review, and we lack jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency if a petition is untimely. Mr. and Mrs. Lucks mailed their petition 353 days after the mailing of the notice of deficiency; therefore, we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.), in effect at all relevant times and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The various pieces of correspondence in this case may have created some confusion that we will try to clear up. On December 7, 2020, the Commissioner sent Mr. and Mrs. Lucks a notice of proposed adjustment, proposing a $2,887 increase to the Luckses' 2018 tax liability. That notice also included interest, bringing the total liability to $3,122. Nearly three months later, on March 1, 2021, the Commissioner sent Mr. and Mrs. Lucks a statutory notice of deficiency for the same deficiency amount, $2,887. But that notice did not include an interest computation. According to the Luckses handwritten notes, they prepared and mailed a check for $3,122 to the Department of Treasury on March 3, 2021, which presumably was before they received the notice of deficiency. They attempted to stop payment on that check, and on March 8, 2021, mailed a check for $2,887 to the Department of Treasury. That check cleared on March 25, 2021. The Commissioner then sent a letter to Mrs. Lucks dated April 19, 2021, showing a refund due. That letter showed an account balance of $-6,009, which may represent the sum of the two payments described above. That letter showed the calculation of the refund due.
On February 23, 2022, the Court received a letter from the Luckses that we filed as a Petition. That letter was contained in an envelope bearing a postmark of February 17, 2022. In their letter and subsequent amended petition, the Luckses explain their difficulties in straightening out their 2018 liability and overpayment.
Like other federal courts, we are a Court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. I.R.C. § 7442; Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230, 235 (2016); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Our jurisdiction in deficiency cases is predicated on a valid notice of deficiency and a timely petition. I.R.C. §§ 6213, 7442; Rules 13, 20; Dees v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 1, 3-4 (2017). Under section 6213(a), a petition must be filed within 90 days after the notice of deficiency is mailed. If the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday in the District of Columbia, the deadline is extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. I.R.C. § 7503. The period within which to file a petition cannot be extended by the Court, and we must dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction if the petition is not filed within the prescribed time. Rule 25(b)(2)(C); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C., slip op. at 42 (Nov. 29, 2022); Blum v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 1128, 1131 (1986).
In this case, the Commissioner mailed a notice of deficiency to the Luckses on March 1, 2021. Ninety days from that date was May 30, 2021, a Sunday. The following day was Memorial Day, a federal holiday, and thus the Luckses' petition was due by June 1, 2021, the next day that was not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. The Luckses mailed their petition to the Court more than eight months after it was required to have been filed. As a result, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed January 13, 2023, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.