Opinion
7355-23S
06-13-2024
HEATHER NICOLE YEARACK, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed February 20, 2024. Respondent's motion is based upon the ground that the Petition, which seeks relief from joint federal income tax liabilities pursuant to section 6015 (section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended) was not filed within the period prescribed in section 6015(e). Petitioner's objection, filed March 9, 2024, in opposition to respondent's motion explains why the Petition was not timely filed. Otherwise, petitioner does not challenge any of the facts that are relied upon by respondent in support of the motion.
The record in this case reflects that, by notice of determination dated and mailed August 5, 2022 (notice), respondent denied petitioner's request for section 6015 relief for her outstanding 2018 federal income tax liability. The notice was mailed to petitioner's last known address, which was the same address used by petitioner in filing her Petition. The notice informed petitioner that if she wished to file a Tax Court petition, the petition must be filed within 90 days of the date of the notice. The Petition to commence this case was electronically filed on May 10, 2023.
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 a case such as this one, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer, and section 6015(e)(1) specifically provides that the petition, to be timely, must be filed within 90 days of the issuance of the notice of determination. "The 90-day filing deadline of section 6015(e)(1)(A) is jurisdictional." Frutiger v. Commissioner, No. 31153-21, 162 T.C., slip op. at 12 (Mar. 11, 2024). Furthermore, the Court has no authority to extend this 90-day period. See id.; Pollack v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 21, 32 (2009) ("[S]ection 6015(e)(1)(A)'s 90-day limit is jurisdictional and therefore doesn't allow for equitable tolling . . . .").
In this case, the time for filing a petition with this Court expired on November 3, 2022. Because the Petition was not filed on or before that date, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
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 in section 6015(e).