Opinion
17083-22S.
09-30-2024
FRIEDGARD VIKTORIA VAN ECK, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Travis A. Greaves, Judge
Pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed September 15, 2022. For the reasons set forth below, we will grant respondent's motion.
Background
On March 29, 2021, respondent mailed to petitioner a notice of deficiency concerning tax year 2017. Respondent used the ZIP code 23707-0278-789. According to United States Postal Service (USPS) tracking information presented by respondent, the notice of deficiency did not arrive until September 3, 2021. On July 18, 2022, petitioner filed the petition in this case. On September 15, 2022, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that petitioner did not file her petition within 90 days of mailing the notice of deficiency. In opposition to respondent's motion, petitioner states that she did not receive the notice of deficiency until May 10, 2022, and also that the ZIP code on the notice of deficiency is incorrect. More specifically, petitioner states that her ZIP code is 23707-0278-not 23707-0278-789. Apart from the additional three digits following the nine-digit ZIP code, the address used by respondent and the address stated by petitioner are identical.
On July 29, 2024, we ordered respondent to present an affidavit or declaration from the USPS stating whether this error affected the deliverability of the notice of deficiency. In response, respondent presented the declaration of Roberta Price, paralegal with the USPS General Law Unit. Ms. Price explained the significance and relative importance of each portion of a ZIP code. It is clear from the declaration that only the first five digits of a ZIP are required for delivery; any additional digits serve only to expedite delivery.
Discussion
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. See § 7442 ; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Where this Court's jurisdiction is duly challenged, as here, our jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown by the party seeking to invoke that jurisdiction. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975). To meet this burden, the party "must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270; Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960). Petitioner invoked our jurisdiction and therefore bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times.
In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, our jurisdiction depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. See §§ 6212, 6213; Sanders v. Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 161 T.C., slip op. at 8 (Nov. 2, 2023). Generally, this Court considers a notice of deficiency to be valid if it is properly mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. See § 6212; Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 807 (1987). If the Commissioner establishes these details, a taxpayer need not receive the notice of deficiency for it to be valid. See, e.g., Alta Sierra Vista, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 367, 373 (1974). To the second jurisdictional requirement, a taxpayer must file a petition within 90 days after respondent mailed the notice of deficiency for it to be timely filed. See § 6213(a); Sanders, 161 T.C., slip. op. at 8.
Because petitioner failed to file the petition within 90 days of respondent mailing the notice of deficiency, we must dismiss this case as untimely. However, if we find that the notice of deficiency was not mailed to petitioner's last known address, we must dismiss this case due to an invalid notice of deficiency. See Shelton v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 193, 194-95 (1974). Thus, while we lack jurisdiction over this case, we have jurisdiction to determine the reason why we lack jurisdiction. See id. Here, that hinges on whether respondent mailed the notice of deficiency to petitioner's last known address.
In determining whether a notice of deficiency was mailed to a taxpayer's last known address, this Court has held that a notice of deficiency is valid notwithstanding "inconsequential errors" in the address used in mailing. See, e.g., Yusko, 89 T.C. at 810. Generally, an error that would not prevent delivery is an inconsequential error. See Lee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-129, 2011 WL 2271722, at *2. An error in the ZIP code used is one such inconsequential error. See, e.g., Moukhitdinov v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-86, at *1. Indeed, the use of ZIP codes is optional. See Gam v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-115, 2000 WL 337564, at *2. We have found a notice of deficiency was sent to the taxpayer's last known address where the Commissioner offered a sworn statement from a USPS employee indicating that a ZIP code error had no effect on deliverability. See id. at *1, *4 (finding the notice of deficiency to be valid despite three erroneous digits added to the end of the nine-digit ZIP code); Pickering v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-142, 1998 WL 176620, at *1, *3 (finding the notice of deficiency to be valid despite errors in the five-digit ZIP code). Petitioner has the burden of proof regarding whether the Commissioner failed to send the notice of deficiency to petitioner's last known address. See Yusko, 89 T.C. at 808.
Here, the error in petitioner's ZIP code did not affect deliverability. Like the ZIP code used in Gam, the first nine digits of petitioner's ZIP code were accurate. This similarity shows that the erroneous three digits added to the end of petitioner's ZIP code do not render the notice of deficiency invalid. Moreover, Ms. Price's declaration states that when ZIP codes are used, only the first five digits are required to be effective.
We conclude that the notice of deficiency is valid notwithstanding the additional three digits added to the ZIP code. Because petitioner failed to file a petition within the statutorily prescribed time, we lack jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, we must dismiss this case as untimely.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed September 15, 2022, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.