Opinion
2178-24S
09-13-2024
STEVEN M. STAES & MICHELLE S. STAES, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed June 7, 2024. Respondent moves that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). Petitioners object to the granting of respondent's motion. For reasons stated below, we will grant respondent's motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
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). Pugsley v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 691 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Allen v. Commissioner, 2022 WL 17825934 (11th Cir. 2022); 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).
On February 7, 2024, the Court received and filed the Petition to commence this case. Therein petitioners disputed a notice of deficiency for the 2021 tax year, which was mailed to petitioners on November 6, 2023. The 90th day after the notice of deficiency was mailed was February 4, 2024, which was a Sunday; accordingly, the last day to file a petition was February 5, 2024. See I.R.C. § 6213(a).
A timely mailed petition may be treated as though it were timely filed. I.R.C. § 7502(a). In order for the timely mailing/timely filing provision to apply to a petition shipped by private delivery service, however, that service must appear on the list of the Secretary's designated delivery services. See I.R.C. § 7502(f). A list of designated delivery services is found in I.R.S. Notice 2016-30, 2016-18 I.R.B. 676, effective April 22, 2016. Although this list contains multiple UPS delivery services, UPS Ground is not among them.
Petitioners shipped the Petition using UPS Ground, which, as noted, is not a designated delivery service. While the Petition in this case appears to have been shipped on February 5, 2024, it was not sent by U.S. Mail or a designated private delivery service. As a result, the timely mailing/timely filing provision of I.R.C. section 7502(a) does not apply in this case. Thus the Petition, which was received and filed on February 7, 2024, was not timely filed, and this Court is without jurisdiction in this case.
While we are sympathetic to petitioners' circumstances, Congress has limited our jurisdiction in the deficiency context to those cases in which a petition is timely filed, and we have no authority to extend by equitable tolling the 90-day period set forth in section 6213(a). See Foster v. Commissioner, 445 F.2d at 800; Sanders, 161 T.C., slip op. at 7-8; Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 166-67; see also Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972) ("We have no authority to extend the period provided by law for filing a petition with the Tax Court whatever the equities of a particular case may be and regardless of the cause for its not being filed within the required period."). However, although petitioners cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioners may still pursue an administrative resolution of their 2021 tax liability directly with the IRS. Another remedy potentially available to petitioners, if feasible, is to pay the determined amounts and thereafter file claims for refund with the IRS. If those claims are denied (or not acted upon after six months), petitioners may file a suit for refund in the appropriate U.S. 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 of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by I.R.C. section 6213(a).