Opinion
20807-22S
03-21-2023
JODY MILLAN & RUBEN MILLAN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On November 14, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed with respect to tax year 2019. Respondent attached to the motion a copy of the certified mail list as evidence of the fact that the notice of deficiency was sent to petitioners by certified mail on April 25, 2022.
The petition was electronically filed on September 25, 2022, which date is 153 days after the date the notice of deficiency for tax year 2019 was mailed to petitioners. Attached to the petition is a copy of the deficiency notice issued for 2019, which states that the last day for filing a timely Tax Court petition as to that notice would expire on July 25, 2022.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. This Court's jurisdiction to determine a deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. 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. 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 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). The Court has no authority to extend this 90 day (or 150 day) period. Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960).
In the present case, the time for filing a petition with this Court expired on July 25, 2022. However, the petition was not filed within that 90 day period.
On February 10, 2023, petitioners filed an objection to respondent's motion. Also on February 10, 2023, petitioners filed a supplement to their objection. In their objection, as supplemented, petitioners do not dispute the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion. Instead, petitioners argue the merits of their case.
While the Court is sympathetic to petitioners' situation, governing law recognizes no exceptions for good cause or similar grounds that would allow them to proceed in this judicial forum. Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256 (1972). Accordingly, since the petition was not filed within the required 90 day period, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The fact that the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction does not preclude the parties from administratively resolving the deficiency issues if they are able to do so. In addition, if financially feasible, petitioners may pay the tax, file a claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service, and if the claim is denied, sue for a refund in Federal district court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 (1970).
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.