Opinion
11359-24
09-06-2024
LUTHER T. WYCHE, JR., Petitioner 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 August 1, 2024, on the grounds that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On September 4, 2024, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
The record reflects that a notice of deficiency, dated August 28, 2017, for petitioner's 2016 tax year was sent by certified mail to petitioner's last known address on August 20, 2017. The notice of deficiency stated that the last day to file a Petition with the Tax Court was November 27, 2017. The Petition to commence this case was received and filed July 9, 2024. The envelope containing the Petition bears a postmark dated July 2, 2024.
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. 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). When a notice of deficiency is mailed prior to the date shown on that notice, the taxpayer may use the date of the notice in determining the last date to file a petition. Loyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-172. 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).
Based on the date of the notice of deficiency--August 28, 2017--the 90-day period to timely file a Tax Court petition expired on November 27, 2017. Thus, the Petition, which was mailed on July 2, 2024, and filed on July 9, 2024, was not timely mailed or filed.
In his objection to the motion to dismiss, petitioner discusses the merits of his claims and does not address respondent's jurisdictional allegations concerning the late-filed Petition. However, if this Court does not have jurisdiction, we cannot reach the merits of a case.
Here, the record establishes that the Petition in this case was not timely filed, and the Court is therefore obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. While we are sympathetic to petitioner's circumstances, we have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. at 167; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960).
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).