Opinion
2963-24S
04-26-2024
RICHARD T. SIMMONS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
KATHLEEN KERRIGAN CHIEF JUDGE.
On April 2, 2024, respondent filed in the above-docketed case a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, and a first supplement to the motion followed on April 8, 2024. The motion, as supplemented, sought dismissal on the ground that the petition herein was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). Respondent attached to the motion or supplement copies of a notice of deficiency and the corresponding certified mail list (U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Form 3877), as evidence of the fact that such notice for the taxable year 2018, dated November 20, 2023, had been sent to petitioner by certified mail on November 16, 2023.
The petition herein was filed with the Court on February 22, 2024, which date is 94 days after the date of the notice of deficiency for tax year 2018 mailed to petitioner. The petition had been filed electronically on that February 22, 2024, date, received at 5:08 p.m., and an address in Metairie, Louisiana, was provided as the mailing address.
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 the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Rochelle v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 740, 741 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), aff 'g 116 T.C. 356 (2001); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982); see 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). In this regard, section 6213(a), I.R.C., 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 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 v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. at 166-67; Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, a petition shall be treated as timely filed if it is filed on or before the last date specified in such notice for the filing of a Tax Court petition, a provision which becomes relevant where that date is later than the date computed with reference to the mailing date. Sec. 6213(a), I.R.C. Likewise, if the conditions of section 7502, I.R.C., are satisfied, a petition which is timely mailed may be treated as having been timely filed.
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. Sec. 7445, I.R.C.; Rule 10, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 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 v. Commissioner, No. 15959-22, 160 T.C. (May 2, 2023).
In the present case, the time for filing a petition with this Court expired on February 20, 2024. However, the petition was not filed within that period.
Petitioner was served with a copy of respondent's motion to dismiss and, on April 24, 2024, filed an objection, with attachments. Therein, petitioner did not directly deny the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion and did not allege that petitioner had filed with the Tax Court before the statutory deadline. Rather, the submission focused solely on the substance of the case, i.e., petitioner's position related to merchant transfers for a business that he owned in 2017 and 2018, stating:
With objection, These merchant deposits from Shopify are being reported to my personal social security number instead of the Federal Tax ID the company I owned in 2017 and 2018. At the end of 2017 (my federal and state taxes were reported for this year) I decided to start my move back to Louisiana from California because of the over saturation of similar businesses selling the same type of items due to the overwhelming popularity. I did maintain the business for the first few months of 2018 but the remainder of the sales through the end of the year where through direct online sales. I have included a schedule C for the 2018 year as well as my federal tax ID. I am currently going through all my files to get the full 2018 tax return to submit as soon as possible.
Thus, at this juncture, the Court has received from petitioner nothing that denies, or even appears to acknowledge, the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion. The only other meaningful correspondence received, i.e., the petition, likewise focused only on the merchant transactions. Nothing has addressed in any way the timeliness of the original petition. Any evidence of a timely petition to the Tax Court therefore remains absent from the record.
Hence, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioner's situation and understands the unintentional character of the inadvertence here, as well as the challenges of the circumstances faced and the good faith efforts made, the fundamental nature of the filing deadline here precludes the case from going forward. As a Court of limited jurisdiction, the Court is traditionally unable to offer any remedy or assistance when a petition is filed late. Rather, the Court is barred from considering in any way petitioner's case or the correctness of petitioner's claims. Governing law within the Fifth Circuit recognizes no reasonable cause or other applicable exception to the statutory deadline, and the allegation that the petition was sent two days late remains unrebutted.
The Court has no authority to extend that period provided by law for filing a petition "whatever the equities of a particular case may be and regardless of the cause for its not being filed within the required period." Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). Accordingly, since petitioner has failed to establish that the petition was mailed to or filed with this Court within the required 90-day period, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court would, however, encourage petitioner to consider or continue working administratively through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which, being entirely separate from the Tax Court, may be able to offer alternative avenues for relief, not dependent on the existence of a Tax Court case, such as audit reconsideration or a refund action.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, as supplemented, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.