Opinion
20473-22
07-06-2023
FRANCISCO RUIZ & ANNA STUMP, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Ronald L. Buch, Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. More than 90 days after Commissioner mailed a notice of deficiency to Mr. Ruiz and Ms. Stump, they mailed a Petition to the Court. For this Court to have jurisdiction in a deficiency case, a petition generally must be filed within 90 days of the Commissioner's mailing a notice of deficiency. Because Mr. Ruiz and Ms. Stump filed their Petition more than 90 days after the Commissioner mailed them a notice of deficiency, we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss this case.
Background
The Commissioner mailed a notice of deficiency for 2020 to Francisco Ruiz and Anna Stump. The notice was mailed to their last known address, which was also the address shown on their petition. Although the notice was dated May 31, 2022, the Commissioner mailed it by certified mail on May 27, 2022. The face of the notice of deficiency stated that the last date to petition the Tax Court was August 29, 2022, which is 90 days from May 31, 2022.
Mr. Ruiz and Ms. Stump mailed an untimely petition to the Court. They prepared a letter dated August 29, 2022, and mailed it to the Court. They mailed that letter in an envelope bearing a postmark of September 3, 2022. The Court received that envelope on September 9, 2022.
The Commissioner filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, and later, an Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, to which Mr. Ruiz and Ms. Stump object. The Commissioner's motion is predicated on the grounds that the petition was untimely. In their objection, Mr. Ruiz and Ms. Stump acknowledge the untimeliness of their petition but request an extension due to personal considerations experienced during the filing period.
Discussion
The period within which to file a petition with the Court expired on August 29, 2022. Under section 6213(a), a petition must be filed within 90 days after the notice of deficiency is mailed. If the last date to file a petition as stated on the notice is more than 90 days after the notice was mailed, the deadline is extended to that date. Id. Because the notice of deficiency stated that the last date to file a petition was August 29, 2022 (which was more than 90 days after the date of actual mailing), the deadline to file a petition is extended to that date.
Mr. Ruiz and Ms. Stump's petition was untimely. They mailed their petition on September 3, 2022, and the Court received it on September 9, 2022. Both dates are beyond the 90-day filing period.
Like other federal courts, we are a Court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. I.R.C. § 7442; Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230, 235 (2016); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Our jurisdiction in deficiency cases is predicated on a valid notice of deficiency and a timely petition. I.R.C. §§ 6213, 7442; Rules 13, 20; Dees v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 1, 3-4 (2017). The period within which to file a petition cannot be extended by the Court, and we must dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction if the petition is not filed within the prescribed time. Rule 25(b)(2)(C); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C., slip op. at 42 (Nov. 29, 2022); Blum v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 1128, 1131 (1986).
Conclusion
Because Mr. Ruiz and Ms. Stump's petition was untimely, it is
ORDERED that Commissioners' Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.