Opinion
26423-21
05-21-2024
DELORES M. SISSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On April 22, 2024, respondent filed in the above-docketed case a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the ground that the petition 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 copies of a notice of deficiency for 2018 and the corresponding certified mail list (U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Form 3877), as evidence of the fact that such notice dated April 12, 2021, had been sent to petitioner by certified mail on April 12, 2021.
The petition herein was filed with the Court on July 14, 2021, which date is 93 days after the date of the notice of deficiency for tax year 2018 mailed to petitioner. The petition was received by the Court via FedEx Standard Overnight. FedEx electronic database tracking information is consistent in showing July 13, 2021, as the formal ship date and FedEx Standard Overnight as the service.
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. 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 July 12, 2021. However, the petition was not filed within that period.
Petitioner was served with a copy of respondent's motion to dismiss and, on May 13, 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 on a settlement that had been reached administratively with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), prior to the filing of the motion to dismiss, which resolution had incorporated no deficiency and no penalty due from petitioner for the 2018 year. In particular, petitioner expressed concern as to whether the settlement would be honored in light of the potential dismissal. The attachments incorporated correspondence between petitioner and respondent reflecting the settlement.
At that juncture, the Court on May 20, 2024, held a conference call with the parties. Respondent reaffirmed that the settlement would be upheld, and petitioner thereupon was satisfied with the representation made with respondent's counsel, no longer objecting to dismissal of the case.
To recapitulate, the fundamental nature of the filing deadline precludes the case from going forward. As a Court of limited jurisdiction, the Court is 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. Unfortunately, governing law in the present context of this case appealable to the Eleventh Circuit recognizes no reasonable cause or other applicable exception to the statutory deadline, and the allegation that the petition was sent one day 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 premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court would expect the parties to proceed as communicated on May 20, 2024.