Opinion
7005-21
10-01-2021
Valorie Rachelle Tate Gorham & Roelof E. Gorham Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
MAURICE B. FOLEY CHIEF JUDGE
On February 25, 2021, the Court received and filed the petition to commence this case, in which petitioners seek review of a notice of deficiency issued to them for their 2017 tax year. On June 25, 2021, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code. On September 13, 2021, petitioners filed an objection to respondent's motion, asserting therein that their petition was prior to the last day a petition could be filed with the Tax Court.
The Tax 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 redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice of Procedure; Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). In this regard, and as relevant here, Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6213(a) provides that the petition must be filed with the Court within 90 days after a valid notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). If a petition is timely mailed and properly addressed to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C., it will be considered timely filed. See I.R.C. sec. 7502(a)(1). In order for the timely mailing/timely filing provision to apply, the envelope containing the petition must bear a postmark with a date that is on or before the last date for timely filing a petition. See I.R.C. sec. 7502(a)(2). The record in this case reflects that petitioners timely mailed their petition. The petition, however, was addressed to the Internal Revenue Service in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, rather than to the United States Tax Court in Washington, D.C. After receiving the petition, the IRS forwarded it to the Tax Court. As noted above, the Tax Court received and filed the petition on February 25, 2021, which was after the last day petitioners could file a timely petition with respect to the notice of deficiency on which this case is based.
The record establishes that the petition in this case was not timely filed. While the Court is sympathetic to petitioners' circumstances, we have no authority to extend the period for timely filing the 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). However, although petitioners may not prosecute this case in the Tax Court, petitioners may continue to pursue administrative resolution of the tax liability directly with the IRS. Another remedy available to petitioners, if feasible, is to pay the determined amounts, then file a claim for refund with the IRS. If the claim is denied or not acted on for six months, petitioners may file a suit for refund in the appropriate Federal 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, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.