Opinion
16228-23S
12-29-2023
LESLIE A. PATTY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On November 14, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). By Order dated November 16, 2023, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion. On December 18, 2023, petitioner filed a document titled "Letter," in which petitioner disputes the determinations made in the notice of deficiency for tax year 2020 and attaches several evidentiary pages. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
On May 8, 2023, respondent issued petitioner a notice of deficiency for tax year 2020. On October 10, 2023, the Court received and filed the Petition in this case. The Petition seeks review of the notice of deficiency issued to petitioner for 2020, a copy of which is attached to the Petition.
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 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 deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition 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). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Patmon & Young Pro. Corp. v. Commissioner, 55 F.3d 216 (6th Cir. 1995), aff'g T.C. Memo. 1993-143; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 n.4 (2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); see Sanders v. Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 161 T.C., slip op. at 7-8 (Nov. 2, 2023) (holding that the Court will continue treating the deficiency deadline as jurisdictional in cases appealable to jurisdictions outside the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit). We have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 167; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960).
If a petition is timely mailed and properly addressed to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C., it will be considered timely filed. See I.R.C. § 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 I.R.C. § 7502(a)(2). If the postmark is missing or illegible, a taxpayer may present extrinsic evidence to prove the date of mailing. See Anderson v. U.S., 966 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1992); Mason v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 354 (1977).
As noted above, on May 8, 2023, the notice of deficiency for tax year 2020 was mailed to petitioner's last known address, which is within the United States. The 90th day from the mailing of the notice of deficiency was August 6, 2023, which was a Sunday; accordingly, the last date to file a petition with this Court as to the notice was August 7, 2023. See I.R.C. § 6213(a). On October 10, 2023, the Court received and filed the Petition to commence this case. The date of mailing printed on the envelope in which the Petition was mailed is illegible; however, petitioner's signature on the Petition is dated September 7, 2023. Moreover, petitioner has made no argument and offered no evidence regarding the date of mailing. The record in this case establishes that the Petition was not timely filed and, accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner's Letter, filed December 18, 2023, does not address the jurisdictional issue raised by respondent's motion; instead, it contains petitioner's arguments about the determinations on the notice of deficiency. As we lack jurisdiction in this case, we cannot consider petitioner's arguments.
Although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may continue to pursue administrative resolution of the 2020 tax liability with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Another remedy potentially available to petitioner, if feasible, is to pay the determined amount and thereafter file a claim for refund with the IRS. If that claim is denied (or not acted upon after six months), petitioner may file a suit for refund in the appropriate U.S. 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 above, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by I.R.C. section 6213(a).