Opinion
8831-22S
03-01-2023
REED K. THOMPSON & LIANNE T. THOMPSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Peter J. Panuthos, Special Trial Judge
On January 23, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that: (1) with respect to petitioner Reed K. Thompson, the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code and (2) with respect to petitioner Lianne T. Thompson, no notice of deficiency was issued providing a basis for jurisdiction. Respondent indicates that petitioners have no objection to the granting of the motion.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and it may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. See § 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In deficiency cases, a valid notice of deficiency and timely petition are prerequisites to obtaining jurisdiction before our Court. § 6213(a); Rule 13(a), (c); Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982). 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).
Section 6213(a) provides that a taxpayer must file a petition for redetermination within 90 days after the Commissioner mails the notice of deficiency (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). If it is properly mailed within those 90 days but received later, it may nonetheless be timely. § 7502. The notice of deficiency is sufficient if mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. § 6212(b). The statute does not require that respondent prove delivery or actual receipt of the notice of deficiency. See Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 33 (1989).
The record reflects that respondent mailed a notice of deficiency for tax year 2016 to petitioner Reed K. Thompson, on October 18, 2021 by certified mail to 570 El Camino Real Ste. 150 Redwood City, CA 94063. The petition was received and filed with the Court on April 11, 2022, which date is 175 days after the mailing of the notice of deficiency. The petition was received by the Court in an envelope that bears a postmark dated April 1, 2022, which date is 165 days after the notice of deficiency was mailed to petitioner. The address reflected in the petition, 570 El Camino Real Ste. 150 Redwood City, CA 94063, is the same address to which the notice of deficiency was mailed. The last day by which petitioner could timely petition this Court with respect to the notice of deficiency was January 18, 2022, which date was not a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia. Based on the foregoing, the petition was not timely filed.
The Court has no authority to extend the period provided by law for filing a 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); See also Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. No. ___ (Nov. 29, 2022).
As to petitioner Lianne T. Thompson, the record does establish that she was issued any notice of deficiency under section 6212(a) or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. Accordingly, we dismiss this matter as to petitioner Lianne Thompson on this basis. See Versteeg v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 339, 341 (1988).
The record demonstrates that the Court lacks jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiency for tax year 2016.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed January 23, 2023 is granted and this case is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.