From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rugamas v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Aug 8, 2024
No. 7375-24S (U.S.T.C. Aug. 8, 2024)

Opinion

7375-24S

08-08-2024

NEHEMIAS RUGAMAS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge

On June 25, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6213(a). Although the Court provided petitioner the opportunity to file an objection to respondent's Motion, petitioner has not done so.

Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 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 deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition 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). Andrews v. Commissioner, 563 F.2d 365 (8th Cir. 1977) ; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 n.4 (2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); see Sanders v. Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 161 T.C., slip op. at 7-8 (Nov. 2, 2023) (holding that the Court will continue treating the deficiency deadline as jurisdictional in cases appealable to jurisdictions outside the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit).

The record in this case establishes that the Petition was not timely filed and, accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. We have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 167; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may still be able to pursue an administrative resolution of petitioner's 2021 tax liability directly with the Internal Revenue Service.

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 because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by I.R.C. section 6213(a).


Summaries of

Rugamas v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Aug 8, 2024
No. 7375-24S (U.S.T.C. Aug. 8, 2024)
Case details for

Rugamas v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:NEHEMIAS RUGAMAS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE…

Court:United States Tax Court

Date published: Aug 8, 2024

Citations

No. 7375-24S (U.S.T.C. Aug. 8, 2024)