Opinion
4434-22S
03-21-2023
LAURA R. VILLIAS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
The petition in the above-docketed matter was filed on February 10, 2022, and 2019 was reflected as the taxable year in dispute. A First Amended Petition was then filed on Junen 6, 2022, attaching a notice of deficiency dated October 12, 2021, issued to petitioner with respect to the 2019 taxable year. An Answer to Amended Petition followed on July 20, 2022, but did not address jurisdictional matters.
Subsequent review of the record, however, suggested a fundamental jurisdictional defect. At that juncture, the Court by Order served December 6, 2022, directed the parties, on or before January 6, 2023, to show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that the petition was not mailed to or filed with the Tax Court within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). The Order was based on observation that the date of the notice of deficiency underlying this proceeding for 2019 indicated a statutory deadline for filing a petition pursuant to section 6213(a), I.R.C., which expired on January 10, 2022, while the envelope in which the petition was received bore a postmark dated February 4, 2022.
On January 6, 2023, and apparently in lieu of a response to the Court's Order, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the same ground of an untimely petition. Therein, respondent confirmed, and provided supporting documentation in the form of a certified mail list to establish, that the notice of deficiency was mailed on October 12, 2021. Respondent further concurred that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. To date, no response has been received from petitioner.
This 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 the 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 and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982). In this regard, section 6213(a), I.R.C., provides that the petition must be filed with the Court within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). The Court has no authority to extend this 90-day (or 150-day) period. Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, a petition shall be treated as timely filed if it is filed on or before the last date specified in such notice for the filing of a Tax Court petition, a provision which becomes relevant where that date is later than the date computed with reference to the mailing date. Sec. 6213(a), I.R.C. Likewise, if the conditions of section 7502, I.R.C., are satisfied, a petition which is timely mailed may be treated as having been timely filed.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order To Show Cause, served December 6, 2022, is hereby made absolute. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.