Opinion
5658-24
09-27-2024
CLAUDINEI MACHADO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
This case for the redetermination of a deficiency is before the Court on respondent's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed September 26, 2024. The record shows that: (1) a notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner on January 2, 2024; (2) the 90-day period for timely filing a petition seeking review of the deficiency determined in that notice expired on April 1, 2024; and (3) the Petition was electronically filed on April 9, 2024, after the 90-day period for timely filing had expired.
Absent a stipulation, this case is appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which has ruled that the 90-day period for filing a deficiency petition is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling. See Culp v. Commissioner, 75 F.4th 196 (3d Cir. 2023), cert. denied, No. 23-1037, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2725 (U.S. June 24, 2024); see also Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 756-57 (1970) (holding that "better judicial administration requires us to follow a Court of Appeals decision which is squarely in point where appeal from our decision lies to that Court of Appeals"), aff'd, 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971).
Premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion is recharacterized and treated as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's objection, if any, to respondent's motion is due not later than October 18, 2024. If an objection is filed, petitioner should explain why petitioner was unable to file the Petition within the above-referenced 90-day period.
Petitioner is advised that the failure to timely object to respondent's motion could result in the granting of the motion.