Opinion
23696-21
05-19-2023
BRANDON STRICKLAND, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.
On November 8, 2021, 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. Although the Court provided petitioner the opportunity to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion, 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 case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of this Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. See Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) sec. 6213(a); see also Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Brown v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 215, 220 (1982). A timely mailed petition may be treated as though it were timely filed. I.R.C. sec. 7502(a). In order for the timely mailing/timely filing provision to apply to a petition sent by private delivery service, the service must appear on the list of the Secretary's designated delivery services. See I.R.C. sec. 7502(f). Those designated delivery services are found in Notice 2016-30, effective April 22, 2016. UPS Ground, used by petitioner, is not listed among the designated delivery services.
The record in this case establishes that the petition, which was received and filed by the Court on June 29, 2021, was not timely filed. Accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. However, although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner is free to pursue an administrative resolution of the 2018 tax liability directly with the IRS.
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.