Opinion
26950-22
06-13-2023
GRACE CIARALU PASCUAL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
KATHLEEN KERRIGAN CHIEF JUDGE
On February 3, 2023, respondent filed in the above-docketed case a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the ground that the petition herein was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). Respondent attached to the motion copies of a notice of deficiency and the corresponding certified mail list, as evidence of the fact that such notice for the taxable year 2020, dated August 29, 2022, had been sent to petitioner by certified mail on August 29, 2022.
The petition herein was filed with the Court on December 5, 2022, which date is 98 days after the date of the notice of deficiency for tax year 2020 mailed to petitioner. The petition had been received by the Court in an envelope that bears a postmark dated November 29, 2022, which date is 92 days after the date of the 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, 159 T.C. No. 6 (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
Entered and Served 06/13/23 filed.
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). 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. § 7445; Rule 10. And 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, No. 15959-22, 160 T.C. (May 2, 2023).
In the present case, the time for filing a petition with this Court expired on November 28, 2022. However, the petition was not filed within that period.
Petitioner was served with a copy of respondent's motion to dismiss and, on June 9, 2023, filed a letter, with attachments, in presumed response to the motion. Therein, petitioner did not directly deny the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion and did not allege that petitioner had filed with the Tax Court before the statutory deadline. Rather, the submission focused solely on the substance of the case, i.e., petitioner's position related to the alleged unreported income, stating:
The amount that was reported by Square for the tax year 2020 was reported incorrectly, it was reported under my social security number and it should have been reported to a company account. I would like to appeal this tax amount in full.
I have contacted the company square myself last year to fix this tax return but they have failed to do so. The representative I spoke to agreed that there is an EIN on file that it should have been reported to. I can provide a copy of my bank account statements if you'd like to see proof that I did not receive said funds.
Attached were copies of bank statements in support of petitioner's representations. The letter then closed with a request that petitioner be advised of the next steps.
Hence, at this juncture, the Court has received from petitioner nothing that denies, or even appears to address, the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion. The only other meaningful correspondence received, i.e., the petition, likewise focused exclusively on the substance of petitioner's case, communicating petitioner's stance that she should not be taxed on the business income reported by Square. Nothing has addressed in any way the timeliness of the original petition. Any evidence of a timely petition to the Tax Court therefore remains absent from the record.
Hence, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioner's 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 petitioner's case or the correctness of petitioner's claims. Unfortunately, governing law recognizes no reasonable cause or other applicable exception to the statutory deadline, and the allegation that the petition was sent one day 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 petitioner to consider or continue working administratively through the Internal Revenue Service (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 respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.