Opinion
4858-23
06-20-2023
LEONARD TARVER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On May 26, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely. Petitioner filed an Objection on June 12, 2023, and a supplement to the Objection on June 15, 2023. In his objection as supplemented, petitioner alleges that he mailed a petition to the Court on November 20, 2022, prior to filing the one in this case on April 5, 2023. Unfortunately, neither petitioner nor the Court has any record of the Court's having received a prior petition, and the petition filed in April was not timely in response to the notice of deficiency dated November 14, 2022.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise that jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). The Court has no authority to extend the statutory period for filing a timely petition in response to a notice of deficiency. Hallmark Research Collective, supra; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). The petition in this case was not timely filed and we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
We note that petitioner may not be without a remedy. There may be administrative opportunities to resolve the matters in question with the IRS, or it may be possible for petitioner to pay the tax, file a claim for refund with the IRS, and, if the claim is denied (or if no action thereon is taken within 6 months), sue for a refund in the appropriate Federal district court or the United States Court of Federal Claims. See secs. 6532(a), 7422(a); 28 U.S.C. secs. 1346(a)(1), 1491(a)(1); McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 n.5 (1970).
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.