Opinion
8961-23
04-05-2024
ASHLEY SCOTT, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Patrick J. Urda Judge
This case is currently calendared for trial on the Court's Jackson, Mississippi trial session, scheduled to begin April 29, 2024.
On March 8, 2024, the parties filed a joint proposed stipulated decision and settlement stipulation. Before taking action on the proposed stipulated decision, the Court questioned the timeliness of the petition in this case, and therefore our jurisdiction.
By Order to Show Cause served March 13, 2024, the Court directed the parties to show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the period prescribed by section 6213(a) and authorized by section 6212. On March 22, 2024, the Commissioner filed a response and on March 26, 2024, petitioner Ashley Scott filed her response. In his response, the Commissioner maintains that the petition does not appear to have been timely filed. Ms. Scott also admits in her response that her petition may not have been timely filed and that she relied on her tax preparer to electronically file the petition on her behalf.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.), in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Like all federal courts, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by Congress. See I.R.C. § 7442; Nutt v. Commissioner, No. 15959-22, 160 T.C., slip op. at 1 (May 2, 2023); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 132 (2022). In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition. See Rule 13(c); Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082, 1092 (9th Cir. 2020); Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 130, n.4 (collecting cases); see also 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).
Section 6213(a) provides that a 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, 159 T.C. at 166- 67. And other statutory rules that might extend the time for filing a petition are not applicable here. See I.R.C. §§ 6213(a), 7502; Nutt, 160 T.C., slip op. at 3.
In deficiency cases, the Commissioner bears the burden of proving by competent and persuasive evidence that the notice of deficiency was mailed to the taxpayer. Portwine v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2015-29 at *10. This is generally proven by "documentary evidence of mailing or by evidence of the Commissioner's mailing practices corroborated by direct testimony. Id. Here, neither of the parties dispute the mailing of the notice of deficiency, and while the Commissioner was unable to produce the Form 3877, the certified mail number on the notice of deficiency, when cross-referenced with USPS, shows that the notice was timely mailed.
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, 160 T.C, slip op. at 1, 3.
Lastly, although the Court lacks authority to enter the proposed stipulated decision, the parties are highly encouraged to administratively resolve these issues.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause is hereby made absolute. It is further
ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the petition was not filed within the period prescribed by section 6213(a).