Opinion
10144-22
07-16-2024
CHEN MEI PYRON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Respondent's Motion is based upon the ground that the Petition, which seeks relief from a joint federal income tax liability pursuant to section 6015 (section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended), was not filed within the period prescribed by section 6015(e). Petitioner opposes respondent's Motion and in an Objection filed on May 1, 2024, explains why the Petition was not timely filed. Otherwise, petitioner does not challenge any of the facts that are relied upon by respondent in support of the Motion, and those facts are easily summarized below.
By notice of determination dated and mailed August 11, 2021 (notice), respondent denied petitioner's request for section 6015 relief for her outstanding 2016 federal income tax liability. The Petition in this case was filed on April 29, 2022, and arrived at the Court in an envelope bearing a postmark date of April 26, 2022.
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 such as this one, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer, and section 6015(e)(1) specifically provides that the petition, to be timely, must be filed within 90 days of the notice of determination. "The 90-day filing deadline of section 6015(e)(1)(A) is jurisdictional." Frutiger v. Commissioner, No. 31153-21, 162 T.C., slip op. at 12 (Mar. 11, 2024). Furthermore, the Court has no authority to extend this 90-day period. See id.; Pollack v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 21, 32 (2009) ("[S]ection 6015(e)(1)(A)'s 90-day limit is jurisdictional and therefore doesn't allow for equitable tolling . . . .").
In this case, the time for filing a petition with this Court expired on November 9, 2021. Because the Petition was not filed within that period, respondent's Motion is well-made and must be granted.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed June 22, 2022, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by section 6015(e). It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Proceed Remotely, filed May 18, 2022, is moot.