From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Siegel v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Mar 23, 2023
No. 19429-22S (U.S.T.C. Mar. 23, 2023)

Opinion

19429-22S

03-23-2023

LAUREN RACHEL SIEGEL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


ORDER

Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge

On August 26, 2022, petitioner filed the petition in this case, seeking review of a notice of deficiency, dated May 9, 2022, issued to her for her 2020 tax year. On October 4, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. By Order issued December 23, 2022, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion. No response has been received from petitioner.

In a deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition 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). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). In certain circumstances where a petitioner's last known address was within the United States, but petitioner was temporarily outside the United States when the notice of deficiency was mailed and delivered, the Court has held that the petitioner had 150 days, rather than the typical 90 days, to file a petition challenging the notice of deficiency. See Levy v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 228 (1981); Estate of Krueger v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 667 (1960).

The notice of deficiency, dated May 9, 2022, attached to the petition in this case bears a handwritten note (presumably made by petitioner) stating "Please note I was out of the country until June 5th." Because it is possible in this case that petitioner had 150 days, rather than 90 days, within which to file her petition, we will direct petitioner to file a response to this Order and provide the Court with some additional information concerning petitioner's time spent out of the country.

Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that, on or before April 14, 2023, petitioner shall file a Response to this Order and therein state: (1) the date petitioner left the United States and where she traveled, and (2) the date petitioner returned to the United States. In addition, petitioner's information should be substantiated by documentation, such as copies of airline tickets, travel itineraries, passport pages, etc. Failure to file a response may result in the granting of respondent's motion and dismissal of this case for lack of jurisdiction.


Summaries of

Siegel v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Mar 23, 2023
No. 19429-22S (U.S.T.C. Mar. 23, 2023)
Case details for

Siegel v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:LAUREN RACHEL SIEGEL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE…

Court:United States Tax Court

Date published: Mar 23, 2023

Citations

No. 19429-22S (U.S.T.C. Mar. 23, 2023)