Opinion
7004-23S
08-30-2023
MOLLY C. RATTIGAN & CHRISTOPHER T. RATTIGAN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
The petition in the above-docketed matter was filed on May 5, 2022, and 2020 was reflected as the taxable year in dispute. An answer to the petition followed on June 27, 2023, attaching a notice of deficiency dated January 9, 2023, issued to petitioners with respect to the 2020 taxable year.
Review of the record, however, suggested a fundamental jurisdictional defect. At that juncture, the Court by Order served June 27, 2023, directed the parties, on or before July 28, 2023, to show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that the petition was not mailed to or filed with the Tax Court within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). The Order also noted that the date of the notice of deficiency underlying this proceeding for 2020 indicated a statutory deadline for filing a petition pursuant to section 6213(a), I.R.C., which expired on April 10, 2023, while the envelope in which the petition was filed electronically on May 5, 2023.
On July 27, 2023, respondent filed a response to the Order To Show Cause, attaching supporting documentation in the form of a certified mail list to establish that the notice of deficiency was mailed on January 9, 2023. Respondent further concurred that the case should be dismissed as untimely. To date, no response has been received from petitioners.
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; Pugsley v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 691, 692 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Allen v. Commissioner, 2022 WL 17825934 (11th Cir. 2022); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); 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. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. at 166-67; 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.
A petition is ordinarily "filed" when it is received by the Tax Court in Washington, D.C. See, e.g., Leventis v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 353, 354 (1968). Although the Court may sit at any place within the United States, its principal office, its mailing address, and its Clerk's office are in the District of Columbia. I.R.C. § 7445; Rule 10. And a document that is electronically filed with the Court is filed when it is received by the Court as determined in reference to where the Court is located. Nutt v. Commissioner, No. 15959-22, 160 T.C. (May 2, 2023).
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order To Show Cause, served June 27, 2023, is hereby made absolute. It is further
ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.