Opinion
17325-22S
02-03-2023
MEGAN MARIE RICHARDSON & SCOTT RICHARDSON, Petitioners 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, filed September 30, 2022, on the grounds that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On January 27, 2023, petitioners filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
The record reflects, and the parties do not dispute, that a notice of deficiency for petitioners' 2019 tax year was sent by certified mail to petitioners at their last known address on January 31, 2022. The notice of deficiency stated that the last day to file a petition with the Tax Court was May 2, 2022, and informed petitioners to send any petition challenging the notice of deficiency to the U.S. Tax Court, 400 Second Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20217. Petitioners thereafter mailed a petition seeking review of that notice of deficiency. The envelope containing the petition was addressed to the IRS office in Andover, Massachusetts, and bears a postmark dated April 30, 2022. The petition was received by the IRS office in Andover, Massachusetts on May 2, 2022, and the IRS later forwarded the petition to the Tax Court. The Tax Court received and filed the petition on July 27, 2022. The envelope in which the Tax Court received the petition bears a postmark date of July 21, 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 addition, 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 case seeking 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 of Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). In this regard, and as relevant here, Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6213(a) provides that the petition must be filed with the Court within 90 days after a valid notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). If a petition is timely mailed and properly addressed to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C., it will be considered timely filed. See I.R.C. sec. 7502(a)(1). In order for the timely mailing/timely filing provision to apply, the envelope containing the petition must bear a postmark with a date that is on or before the last date for timely filing a petition. See I.R.C. sec. 7502(a)(2). If the postmark is missing or illegible, a taxpayer may present extrinsic evidence to prove the date of mailing. See Anderson v. U.S., 966 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1992); Mason v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 354 (1977).
In their objection to the motion to dismiss, petitioners do not address respondent's jurisdictional allegations. Rather, petitioners focus on discussing the merits of their case. However, if this Court lacks jurisdiction, we cannot reach the merits of a case.
Here, the last day petitioners could timely file a Tax Court petition was May 2, 2022. Petitioners timely mailed their petition on April 30, 2022, but the timely mailing/timely filing provision in the Internal Revenue Code does not apply to that mailing because petitioners failed to properly address the petition to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C. Both the filing date of the petition and the postmark date on the envelope in which the Court received the petition are after the last day petitioners could timely file their petition. Thus the record establishes that the petition in this case was not timely filed, and we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
While the Court is sympathetic to petitioners' circumstances, we have no authority to extend the period for timely filing the petition. Hallmark Research Collective, supra; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). However, although petitioners may not prosecute this case in the Tax Court, petitioners may continue to pursue administrative resolution of their 2019 tax liability directly with the IRS.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.