Opinion
12219-22
12-21-2023
STEPHEN ANTHONY PERAKIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On November 8, 2023, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing the parties to show cause why this case should not be dismissed on the grounds that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On November 30, 2023, respondent filed a Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause and a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. By way of his motion and response, respondent indicated his agreement that this case should be dismissed because the Petition was not timely filed. No response has been received by from petitioner.
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).
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. 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). However, although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner is free to pursue an administrative resolution of petitioner's 2018 tax liability directly with the Internal Revenue Service.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Court's above-referenced Order to Show Cause is made absolute. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted in that this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by Internal Revenue Code §6213(a).