Opinion
17758-23S
03-26-2024
REGINA ALICIA SPANDAU, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On January 2, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, and on January 24, 2024, respondent filed a First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Respondent moves that this case be dismissed, insofar as it concerns the notice of deficiency issued to petitioner for tax year 2020, on the grounds that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. Although the Court provided petitioner the opportunity to file an objection to respondent's Motion, as supplemented, petitioner has not done so.
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a taxpayer invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the taxpayer's case. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960). 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). Rochelle v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 740 (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); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); 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).
The record in this case establishes that the Petition was not timely filed with respect to the notice of deficiency issued to petitioner for tax year 2020 and, accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction, insofar as it concerns a challenge to that notice. We have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 167; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court as to the 2020 notice of deficiency, petitioner's case will continue with respect to petitioner's claim for innocent spouse relief for tax year 2020.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is recharacterized as a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to a Notice of Deficiency. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is recharacterized as a First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to a Notice of Deficiency. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to a Notice of Deficiency, as supplemented, is granted, and so much of this case as pertains to a notice of deficiency for petitioner's 2020 tax year is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and deemed stricken because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by I.R.C. section 6213(a).
Petitioner is reminded that this case will continue with respect to petitioner's request for innocent spouse relief with respect to tax year 2020.