Opinion
5747-24S
07-05-2024
CLARENCE A. LYLES, III & KAREN J. LYLES, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On May 21, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not timely filed with respect to a notice of deficiency for tax years 2014 and 2016, no notice of deficiency was issued to petitioners for tax years 2015 and 2017 through 2021, no notice of determination concerning collection action was issued to petitioners for tax years 2014 through 2021, nor has respondent made any other determination with respect to tax years 2014 through 2021 that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Respondent attached to the motion a copy of the certified mail lists as evidence of the fact that the notice of deficiency for tax year 2014 was sent to petitioners by certified mail on April 13, 2017, and the notice of deficiency for tax year 2016 was sent to petitioners by certified mail on December 17, 2018.
The petition was electronically filed on April 10, 2024, which date is more than a year after the dates that the notices of deficiency for tax year 2014 and 2016 were mailed to petitioners. Attached to the respondent's motion is a copy of the deficiency notice of deficiency issued for 2014, which states that the last day for filing a timely Tax Court petition as to that notice would expire on July 17, 2017. Respondent also attached to the motion a copy of the notice of deficiency issued for 2016, which states that the last day for filing a timely Tax Court petition as to that notice would expire on March 18, 2019.
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 issuance by the Commissioner of a valid notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. Rule 13(a), Tax Court Rules of Practices and Procedure; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because, without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983). This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency also depends on a timely filed petition by the taxpayer. Tilden v. Commissioner, 846 F.3d 882, 886-87 (7th Cir. 2017), rev'g and remanding T.C. Memo. 2015-188; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n. 4 (2022) (collecting cases); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. & Normac International v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). In this regard, 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 the 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, it will be considered timely filed. See I.R.C. sec. 7502(a) (1). In order for the timely mailing/timely filing provision to apply, the envelope containing the petition must be properly addressed to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C., and bear a postmark with a date that is on or before the last date for timely filing a petition. See I.R.C. sec. 7502(a)(2). The Court has no authority to extend this 90 day (or 150 day) period. Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960).
Similarly, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination concerning collection action under section 6320 or 6330, depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals under section 6320 or 6330. I.R.C. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000).
On June 10, 2024, petitioners filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, in which they state that this case is not being filed pursuant to a notice of deficiency, argue the merits of their case, and assert that there has been IRS misconduct.
Petitioners have not provided a copy of a notice of deficiency for tax years 2015 and 2017 through 2021 or a notice of determination that would confer jurisdiction on this Court for tax years 2015 through 2021. Because no notice of deficiency for tax years 2015 and 2017 through 2021 or no notice of determination for tax years 2014 through 2021 sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court has been sent to petitioners, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to those alleged notices.
While the Court is sympathetic to petitioners' situation, governing law recognizes no exceptions for good cause or similar grounds that would allow them to proceed in this judicial forum as to the notices of deficiency for tax years 2014 and 2016. Tilden v. Commissioner, 846 F.3d 882, 886-87 (7th Cir. 2017), rev'g and remanding T.C. Memo. 2015-188; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256 (1972). Accordingly, since the petition was not filed within the required 90 day period, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to the 2014 and 2016 notices of deficiency.
The fact that the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction does not preclude the parties from administratively resolving the deficiency issues if they are able to do so. In addition, if financially feasible, petitioners may pay the tax, file a claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service, and if the claim is denied, sue for a refund in Federal district court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 (1970).
To the extent that petitioners are seeking a refund of taxes paid, petitioners may file a claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service and, if the claim is denied, sue for a refund in Federal District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 (1970). Taxpayers generally have two years to file a lawsuit following disallowance of a claim for refund. See sec. 6532(a)(1). However, the Tax Court is not the proper forum in which to do so. A taxpayer may seek judicial remedy for wrongful denial of refund claims - i.e., a refund suit in compliance with I.R.C. section 6532(a)(1) and 7422(a), either in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1491(a)(1), or in Federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1346(a)(1). None of those statutes confer refund jurisdiction on this Court.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.