Opinion
4590-23
06-20-2023
OLIVER N. NEWMAN & MICHELLE NEWMAN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
The petition in the above-docketed matter was filed on March 8, 2023, and 2018 was referenced as the taxable year in dispute. An answer to the petition followed on March 8, 2023, attaching a notice of deficiency dated July 21, 2022, issued to petitioners with respect to the 2018 taxable year, but the answer did not address jurisdictional matters.
Subsequent review of the record, however, suggested a fundamental jurisdictional defect. At that juncture, the Court by Order served May 22, 2023, directed the parties, on or before June 16, 2023, to show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that the petition was not mailed to or filed with the Tax Court within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). The Order also noted that the date of the notice of deficiency underlying this proceeding for 2018 indicated a statutory deadline for filing a petition pursuant to section 6213(a), I.R.C., which expired on October 19, 2022, while the envelope in which the petition was received bore a postmark dated March 1, 2023.
On June 6, 2023, respondent filed a response to the Order To Show Cause, attaching supporting documentation in the form of a certified mail list to establish that the notice of deficiency was mailed on July 21, 2022. Respondent further concurred that the case should be dismissed as untimely.
On June 16, 2023, petitioners also filed a response to the Court's Order, objecting to dismissal as follows:
1. The notice of deficiency in the case was mailed to the petitioners' last known address, but the petitioners did not take actual notice of the deficiency as the document was not known to them to be a deficiency notice at the time.
2. Upon discovering that the IRS document that had been received was in fact a deficiency notice, Petitioners immediately took appropriate steps to -
have a petition filed, within 90 days of receiving actual notice.
This 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 a case seeking the 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 and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982). In this regard, section 6213(a), I.R.C., 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 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). However, a petition shall be treated as timely filed if it is filed on or before the last date specified in such notice for the filing of a Tax Court petition, a provision which becomes relevant where that date is later than the date computed with reference to the mailing date. Sec. 6213(a), I.R.C. Likewise, if the conditions of section 7502, I.R.C., are satisfied, a petition which is timely mailed may be treated as having been timely filed.
Hence, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioners' situation and understands the unintentional character of the inadvertence here, as well as the challenges of the circumstances faced and the good faith efforts made, the fundamental nature of the filing deadline precludes the case from going forward. As a Court of limited jurisdiction, the Court is unable to offer any remedy or assistance when a petition is filed late. Rather, the Court is barred from considering in any way petitioners' case or the correctness of petitioners' claims. Unfortunately, governing law recognizes no reasonable cause or other applicable exception to the statutory deadline, and the allegation that the petition was sent more than four months late remains unrebutted.
The Court has no authority to extend that 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 petitioners have failed to establish that the petition was mailed to or filed with this Court within the required 90-day period, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court would, however, encourage petitioners to continue working administratively through the IRS, which, being entirely separate from the Tax Court, may be able to offer alternative avenues for relief, not dependent on the existence of a Tax Court case, such as audit reconsideration or a refund action.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order To Show Cause, served May 22, 2023, is hereby made absolute. It is further
ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.