Opinion
2816-23S
07-05-2023
SATENDRA PRASAD & UMA PRASAD, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On May 1, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed. Petitioners filed a Notice of Objection on June 21, 2023, but did not dispute the jurisdictional allegations made in respondent's motion.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise that jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). The Court has no authority to extend the statutory period for filing a timely petition in response to a notice of deficiency. Hallmark Research Collective, supra; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). The record reflects that the petition in this case was not timely filed and we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth therein, respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.