Opinion
25065-22
03-27-2023
SHAKAYA MONAI KITCHENS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On January 27, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On February 22, 2023, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
The record in this case reflects that a notice of deficiency for petitioner's 2020 tax year was sent by certified mail to petitioner's last known address on August 8, 2022. The petition to commence this case was mailed in a U.S. Postal Service Priority Mail envelope bearing a postmark date of November 5, 2022. Petitioner mailed the petition to an address at 310 Lowell St., Andover, Massachusetts, which is the location of an IRS office. That IRS office received the petition on November 8, 2022, and forwarded it to the Tax Court. The petition was received by the Court and filed on November 9, 2022.
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 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 Research 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 taxpayer 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.
Based on the mailing date of the notice of deficiency for petitioner's 2020 tax year, the last date petitioner could timely file a Tax Court petition was November 7, 2022. Petitioner timely mailed her petition on November 5, 2022. However, the envelope containing the petition was erroneously addressed to an IRS office, rather than to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C. Because the envelope was not properly addressed to the Tax Court, the timely mailing/timely filing provision of section 7502 does not apply in this case. The IRS forwarded the petition to the Tax Court which, as discussed above, received and filed the petition on November 9, 2022, a date after the last date petitioner could timely file her petition.
Although petitioner filed an objection to respondent's motion, that objection does not address respondent's jurisdictional allegations. The record establishes that the petition was not timely filed and thus we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. While the Court is sympathetic to petitioner's circumstances and understands the inadvertent nature of petitioner's actions, we have no authority to extend the statutory period for timely filing. Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, supra; 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 the Tax Court, petitioner may continue to pursue an administrative resolution of the 2020 tax liability directly with the IRS. Also, another remedy 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, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.