Opinion
23059-21S
05-10-2023
KELLY-ANN A. SANCHEZ, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On December 12, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing the parties to show cause in writing why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On December 21, 2022, respondent filed a Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, asserting therein that this case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the petition was not timely filed. On April 13, 2023, petitioner filed a Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, opposing the dismissal of this case for lack of jurisdiction.
The record reflects that a notice of deficiency for petitioner's 2017 tax year was sent by certified mail to petitioner's last known address on March 16, 2021. The notice of deficiency stated that the last day to file a petition with the Tax Court was June 14, 2021. Petitioner resides in Houston, Texas. The Court notes that, on February 22, 2021, the IRS announced tax relief for victims of the severe winter storms that occurred in Texas in February 2021. That tax relief, which applied to all counties in the state of Texas, provided that many tax-related deadlines, including those for filing a Tax Court petition, falling between February 11 and June 14, 2021, were extended to June 15, 2021. The envelope in which the petition was mailed bears a postmark dated June 15, 2021. That envelope was addressed to an IRS office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, rather than to the United States Tax Court. It appears the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania IRS office received the petition on June 21, 2021, and forwarded the petition to the Court. The petition was received by the Court and filed on June 28, 2021.
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 Rsch. 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, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, 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).
The notice of deficiency is sufficient if mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. I.R.C. sec. 6212(b). Absent clear and concise notification to the IRS of a different address, a taxpayer's last known address is the address appearing on the taxpayer's most recently filed and properly processed tax return. Sec. 301.6212-2(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 1988), aff'g
88T.C. 1042 (1987). The taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the notice of deficiency was not sent to the taxpayer's last known address. Yusko v. Commissioner, 89T.C. 806, 808 (1987). The statute does not require that respondent prove delivery or actual receipt of the notice of deficiency. See Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 33 (1989).
In her objection to the motion to dismiss, petitioner explains that her occupation means that she is often out of town for weeks at a time. Petitioner maintains that that situation, as well damage from flooding as a result of the Texas winter storms in February 2021, interfered with her ability to timely file her petition.
Here, the last day petitioner could timely file (or timely mail) the petition was June 15, 2021. The petition was timely mailed on June 15, 2021. The envelope containing the petition, however, was incorrectly addressed to the IRS office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The timely mailing/timely filing provision of I.R.C. section 7502(a)(1), pursuant to which a timely mailed petition is treated as timely filed, does not apply unless the petition is both timely mailed and correctly addressed to the United States Tax Court in Washington, D.C. Because the envelope containing the petition was not correctly addressed, petitioner cannot avail herself of the timely filing/timely mailing provision. The petition received by the Court and filed on June 28, 2021, therefore, was not timely filed, and the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
While we are sympathetic to petitioner's circumstances and understand the unintentional nature of the inadvertence that caused the petition to be untimely, we have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, although petitioner may not prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner is free to pursue an administrative resolution of the 2017 tax liability directly with the IRS. Also, another remedy potentially available to petitioner, if feasible, is to pay the determined amounts, file a claim for refund with the IRS, and then (if the claim is denied or not acted on for six months), bring a suit for refund in the appropriate Federal district court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 n.5 (1970).
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause, issued December 12, 2022, is made absolute. It is further
ORDERED that this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.