Opinion
20265-23S
04-09-2024
KENNETH C. WEAVER & EMILY A. WEAVER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
Currently pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed February 16, 2024, on the grounds that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On March 19, 2024, petitioners filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
The record reflects that a notice of deficiency for petitioners' 2020 tax year was sent by certified mail to petitioners' last known address on April 14, 2023. The first page of the notice of deficiency advised petitioners that they could challenge the notice by filing a petition with the Tax Court. The notice of deficiency stated that the last day to file a Petition with the Tax Court was July 13, 2024. The notice also stated: "You should file the petition with the United States Tax Court, 400 Second Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20217."
Like all federal courts, 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 addition, jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and 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).
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. Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2020); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); see Sanders v. Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 161 T.C., slip op. at 7-8 (Nov. 2, 2023) (holding that the Court will continue treating the deficiency deadline as jurisdictional in cases appealable to jurisdictions outside the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit). 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, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, 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. §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. §7502(a)(2).
The notice of deficiency is sufficient if mailed to the taxpayer's last known address. I.R.C. §6212(b). Absent clear and concise notification to the IRS of a different address, a taxpayer's last known address is the address appearing on the taxpayer's most recently filed and properly processed tax return. Treas. Reg. §301.6212-2(a); King v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 1988), aff 'g 88 T.C. 1042 (1987). 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).
Based upon the notice of deficiency's mailing date of April 14, 2023, the 90-day period for timely filing (or timely mailing) a petition expired on July 13, 2023. The Court received and filed the Petition on December 20, 2023, a date well after the last day on which to timely file a petition with the Court. The Petition appears to have been timely mailed by petitioners on July 12, 2023. However, the envelope containing the Petition was not properly addressed to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C. and, therefore, the timely mailing/timely filing provision does not apply in this case. Petitioners mailed their Petition to the federal courthouse in Seattle, Washington, and the Petition was eventually forwarded to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C. While the Tax Court hears cases in Seattle, Washington for the convenience of taxpayers, that address is not the proper address for filing a petition with the Court, as the Court's website and the notice of deficiency make clear.
In their objection to the motion to dismiss, petitioners state that they were confused about the proper address to which to mail their Petition and assert that a clerical error should not prevent their case from being heard. However, if we lack jurisdiction because of the untimely filing of a petition, we cannot reach the merits of a case.
Here, the record establishes that the Petition was not timely filed, and the Court is therefore obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. While we are sympathetic to petitioners' circumstances and understand the unintentional nature of the error, we have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960).
However, although petitioners may not prosecute this case in this Court, petitioners may continue to pursue an administrative resolution of their 2020 tax liability directly with the Internal Revenue Service. Also, another remedy available to petitioners, if financially feasible for them, is to pay the determined amounts, file a claim for refund with the IRS, and then (if the claim is denied or not acted on for six months), bring 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 of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Petition was not filed within the period prescribed by Internal Revenue Code section 6213(a).