Opinion
15028-22
06-20-2023
KAYLA M. WINSTON, F.K.A. KAYLA M. SALLEE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
Petitioner filed a petition to commence the instant case on July 6, 2022, a date after the deadline listed in the notice upon which the case is based. The petition acknowledges that the notice, dated January 3, 2022, was mailed to petitioner's last known address by certified mail. However, the petition goes on to explain that petitioner did not actually receive a copy of the notice until June 7, 2022.
On August 24, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground the petition was not timely filed. Petitioner explained in her response to the motion as supplemented that the United States Postal Service (USPS) tracking information for the certified mail envelope showed that it was still "in transit" and that, because of this delay by the USPS, the notice should be considered as having been "diverted." Respondent filed a response on January 23, 2023, and the parties submitted a joint Status Report on June 13, 2023.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). 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).
The Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). For a notice of deficiency to be valid, it must be mailed to the taxpayer's last known address by certified or registered mail. See sec. 6212(a) and (b); see also Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 52 (1983). We have held that actual receipt of the notice is not required as long as the IRS properly mailed the notice to the taxpayer's last known address. Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 810 (1987). The parties agree that the notice was sent to petitioner's last known address, thus rendering Estate of McKaig v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. 331, 336-337 (1968) (notice insufficient when USPS informed IRS that the notice of deficiency had not been delivered and taxpayer's last known address was in question) inapplicable to the facts at hand.
The parties are free to resolve the underlying matter administratively, but the Court has no authority to extend the deadline for timely filing. See Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022).
Premises considered and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion to dismiss is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.