Opinion
11220-20
01-11-2022
Eric Perez & Fabienne Perez Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
On January 8, 2021, respondent filed in the above-docketed matter a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the ground that the petition in this case was not timely filed within the period 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 corresponding certified mail list, as evidence of the fact that such notice of deficiency for the taxable year 2017, dated February 18, 2020, had been sent to petitioners by certified mail on February 18, 2020.
The petition was filed with the Court on July 23, 2020. The petition was received by the Court in an envelope that bears a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) postmark dated July 17, 2020.
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; 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.
Additionally, in narrowly defined circumstances, scenarios involving disasters, related conditions, and concomitant closures can extend the deadline, as will be further detailed below, to the extent relevant here.
Petitioners were served with a copy of respondent's motion to dismiss and, on February 16, 2021, filed an objection, with attachment. Therein, petitioners did not deny the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion and in fact conceded that petitioners had not filed before the statutory deadline, explaining as follows with regard to timeliness:
The recent coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has had ill effects in multiple sectors leading to hardships and delays in various business enterprises and operations.
Our Motion to Tax Court was prepared and ready to file. However, the premises where our Accountant's (Nationwide Tax) office is located, had to shut down for three months because of the COVID-19 lockdown and stay-at-home regulations.
Hence, our documentation did not make it out the door in time and was stuck at our Accountant's office. Enclosed, please find the letter from Nationwide Tax.
The referenced letter from the accounting firm was attached and corroborated petitioners' representations, stating: "The Clients had submitted their documentation before the deadline. Our office premises were closed due to COVID-19 regulations and the stay-at-home orders. Hence, the paperwork was prepared but not mailed out on time."
Regrettably, while the COVID-19 pandemic did lead to an extension of time for tax-related deadlines, including those for petitions to the Court, the scenario here falls outside the relief afforded. Specifically, Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 320 (2016), and IRS Notice 2020-23, 2020-18 I.R.B. 742 (April 27, 2020), in combination, extended the deadline for filing petitions due between March 19, 2020, and July 15, 2020, to July 15, 2020.
In the present case, the standard deadline time for filing a petition with this Court therefore expired on May 18, 2020, and the extended COVID-19 deadline expired on July 15, 2020. As previously noted, the petition was filed on July 23, 2020, which is 156 days after February 18, 2020, and 8 days after July 15, 2020. The postmark of July 17, 2020, is 150 days after February 18, 2020, and 2 days after July 15, 2020. Consequently, the petition was neither filed nor mailed withing the required period.
Thus, while the Court is deeply sympathetic to petitioners' situation and understands the unintentional character of the inadvertence here, as well as the serious challenges imposed by petitioners' personal circumstances plus the pandemic and the good faith of the efforts undertaken to address the matter, 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, petitioners' evidence, 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 2 days 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 properly mailed to or filed with this Court within the required period, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court would, however, strongly encourage petitioners to consider and/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.