Opinion
4598-24S
05-21-2024
ANPU JULEY MATHEW, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
This case for the redetermination of a deficiency is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed May 7, 2024. By the Motion, respondent moves that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code. Petitioner opposes the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 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 deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition 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). Rochelle v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), aff'g 116 T.C. 356 (2001); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 n.4 (2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); see 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).
The record shows that the notice of deficiency upon which this case is based was sent by certified mail on October 30, 2023, to petitioner's last known address. The 90th day from the date of mailing was Sunday, January 28, 2024; however, I.R.C. 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 timely petition as to the notice of deficiency in this case was January 29, 2023, which date was printed on the notice as the last date to petition this Court. Petitioner electronically filed the Petition in this case on March 25, 2024. Consequently, the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code, and this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In petitioner's objection, as supplemented, to respondent's motion, petitioner argues that this case should not be dismissed because petitioner timely provided to the IRS the documentation requested in various IRS mailings. However, this Court is separate and independent from the IRS. It is well settled that continued interaction with the IRS after receiving a notice of deficiency does not serve to extend the time to timely file a petition with the Tax Court.
While we are sympathetic to petitioner's circumstances, Congress has limited our jurisdiction in the deficiency context to those cases in which a petition is timely filed, and we have no authority to extend the deadline in section 6213(a). See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 167; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may still pursue an administrative resolution of petitioner's 2021 tax liability directly with the IRS.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by section 6213(a).