Opinion
10533-22
03-14-2023
BRAD SEPPEL, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Tamara W. Ashford Judge
On May 3, 2022, the Court received from petitioner Form 12203, Request for Appeals Review, dated April 27, 2022, attaching thereto (1) a notice of deficiency dated October 25, 2021, issued to him with respect to the 2018 taxable year and (2) certain other documents appearing to be in the nature of evidence. On the same day, the Court filed petitioner's submission as the petition to commence this case. On June 14, 2022, petitioner electronically filed (1) a First Amended Petition (consisting of a completed T.C. Form 2) and (2) a First Amendment to First Amended Petition (consisting of the already filed Form 12203 and some of the documents that were attached to that form). On June 6, 2022, respondent filed an Answer to Amended Petition, but therein respondent did not address jurisdictional matters.
Thereafter, and unexpectedly given the state of the record, the parties on February 22, 2023, submitted a Proposed Stipulated Decision resolving all issues in the case; to wit, reflecting that there is no deficiency in income tax or penalty under I.R.C. § 6662(a) due from petitioner for 2018. However, review of the record manifests a fundamental jurisdictional defect that prevents entry of the aforementioned decision. Indeed, this Court, like all federal courts, is a court of limited jurisdiction. § 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). We may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). Relevant to this case, our jurisdiction in a deficiency case depends on (1) the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of a notice of deficiency and (2) the timely filing of a petition within 90 days of the issuance of the notice of deficiency. See § 6213(a); Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983); see also Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. slip op. at 12-13 (Nov. 29, 2022). If a petition is timely mailed, as indicated by the postmark on the envelope containing the petition, and properly addressed to the United States Tax Court in Washington, D.C., it is treated as being timely filed. § 7502(a).
The October 25, 2021, notice of deficiency upon which this case is based indicates that the last day to file a petition with the Tax Court was January 24, 2022. Conversely, although the envelope in which the petition was received does not bear a legible postmark, the petition itself is dated April 27, 2022. Accordingly, the petition is not timely filed and the Court is without jurisdiction in this case. Upon inquiry by the Court, respondent's counsel has informed the Court that respondent is able to and will honor the decision documents when closing out the case in its own system. Upon due consideration, it is hereby
ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petition in this case was not timely filed.
The Court directs respondent to honor the parties' agreement as reflected in the Proposed Stipulated Decision filed with the Court on February 22, 2023.