Opinion
10419-22S
05-04-2023
HASSAN MURAD & AYESHA MURAD, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
Pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed June 30, 2022. Although the Court provided petitioners an opportunity to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion, petitioners have not done so.
The record reflects that respondent sent by certified mail to petitioners' last known address a notice of deficiency, dated February 7, 2022, for petitioners' 2020 tax year. The notice stated that the last day to file a petition with the Tax Court was May 9, 2022. At 1:18 a.m. eastern time on May 10, petitioners electronically filed a petition from Sammamish, Washington, where it was 10:18 p.m. on May 9. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that this case should be dismissed because the petition was untimely. Although the Court provided petitioners an opportunity to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion, petitioners have not done so.
Like other federal courts, 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; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); 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, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, 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). When a notice of deficiency is mailed prior to the date shown on that notice, the taxpayer may use the date of the notice in determining the last date to file a petition. Loyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-172. The notice of deficiency is sufficient if mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. I.R.C. sec. 6212(b). Absent clear and concise notification to the IRS of a different address, a taxpayer's last known address is the address appearing on the taxpayer's most recently filed and properly processed tax return. Sec. 301.6212-2(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 1988), aff'g 88 T.C. 1042 (1987). The taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the notice of deficiency was not sent to the taxpayer's last known address. Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 808 (1987). 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).
A petition is ordinarily "filed" when it is received by the Tax Court in Washington, D.C. See, e.g., Leventis v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 353, 354 (1968) ("[A] petition, in order to be timely filed, must be received by the Court in Washington, D.C., on or before the 90th day."). Although the Court may sit at any place within the United States, its principal office, its mailing address, and its Clerk's office are in the District of Columbia. I.R.C. sec. 7445; Rule 10. A document that is electronically filed with the Court is filed when it is received by the Court as determined in reference to where the Court is located. Nutt v. Commissioner, 160 T.C. No. 10 (May 2, 2023).
The 90th day from the date of the notice of deficiency underlying this case was Monday, May 9, 2022. Petitioners electronically filed the petition in this case on May 10, 2022. Because the petition was untimely, we must dismiss this case. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022). However, although petitioners may not prosecute this case in this Court, petitioners are free to pursue an administrative resolution of their 2020 tax liability directly with the IRS. Also, another remedy available to petitioners, if feasible, is to pay the determined amounts, file a claim for refund with the IRS, and then (if the claim is denied or not acted on for six months), bring a suit for refund in the appropriate Federal district court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 n.5 (1970).
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.