Opinion
11781-20SL
09-20-2021
Nature's First, Inc., Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
ORDER DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Joseph W. Nega Judge
This case is calendared for trial at the session of the Court to be conducted remotely, commencing Monday, September 27, 2021, for cases in which Hartford, Connecticut, is listed as the place of trial.
On September 3, 2021, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. In that motion, respondent asserts pursuant to Rule 53, that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction upon the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by sections 6330(d) or 7502. In support of that, respondent represents that petitioner did not file a timely petition in response to the Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions Under 6320 or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code for petitioner's tax year periods ending December 31, 2013, and December 31, 2016, which was sent to petitioner at its last known address by certified mail on August 17, 2020. On September 8, 2021, petitioner filed a response to respondent's Motion.
All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Congress. Sec. 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In addition, jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a party invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the party'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 review of collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction to review certain collection activity of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code section 6320 or 6330 and the timely filing by the taxpayer of a petition within 30 days of that IRS determination (after the taxpayer has timely requested a collection due process hearing). Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 492, 498 (2000); sec. 6320(c) and6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. If a petition is timely mailed and properly addressed to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C., it will be considered timely filed. See 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 sec. 7502(a)(2).
The record in this case reflects that the notice of determination on which this case is based was issued to petitioner on August 17, 2020, the last date that petitioner could have timely mailed/timely filed the petition would have been September 16, 2020. The envelope within which the petition was received by the Court displayed a postage post mark dated September 17, 2020. Both the filing and mailing dates are after the date a timely petition could be filed with the Court.
The Court has no authority to extend the period provided by law for filing a 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). Accordingly, since the petition was not filed or mailed within the required statutory period, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed September 3, 2021, is granted and this case is Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction.