Opinion
13319-21S
07-10-2023
KRISTEN L. QUEVY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Ronald L. Buch Judge
With this Order, we discharge the Court's Order to Show Cause served June 12, 2023, and find that the Petition in this case was timely filed.
On January 4, 2021, the Commissioner issued a Notice of Deficiency to Kristen Quevy. That notice stated that the last date to petition the Court was April 5, 2021. The United States Postal Service delivered a petition to the Court on April 12, 2021, which was 7 days after the due date stated in the Notice of Deficiency.
Like other federal courts, we are a Court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. I.R.C. § 7442; Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230, 235 (2016). Our jurisdiction in deficiency cases is predicated on a valid notice of deficiency and a timely petition. I.R.C. § 6213; Dees v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 1, 3-4 (2017). A petition is timely if it is filed within 90 days after the notice of deficiency is mailed. I.R.C. § 6213(a). If the notice of deficiency specifies the last day for filing a petition that is later than the 90th day, then the deadline by which to file a petition is extended to the date specified. I.R.C. § 6213(a); Rochelle v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 356, 362-363 (2001), aff'd, 293 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2002). Also, if the last day for filing falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday in the District of Columbia, the deadline is extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. I.R.C. § 7503. The Court cannot extend the deadline for filing a petition in a deficiency case, and we must dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction if the petition is not filed within the statutorily prescribed time. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C., slip op. at 42 (Nov. 29, 2022).
A petition may be timely if it is mailed before the deadline for filing. A petition is ordinarily considered to have been filed when it is received. Nutt v. Commissioner, No. 15959-22, 160 T.C., slip op. at 3 (May 2, 2023), citing Leventis v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 353, 354 (1968). But under section 7502, a document that is properly mailed before the due date but received after the due date is deemed to have been filed on the date it was postmarked. I.R.C. § 7502(a).
In the absence of a postmark, we can look to other information to establish timely mailing. In Sylvan v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 548 (1975) we noted the intent of section 7502 was "to eliminate the random distribution of hardships occasioned by variations in postal performance." To dismiss cases in which the USPS does not apply a postmark to an envelope would again create a situation in which variations in postal performance could lead to hardships.
The Court can consider various facts and circumstances in an effort to determine when an item was mailed to the Court. It may consider simple logic. For example, the petition in Sylvan was delivered by the USPS on the 91st day, i.e., one day late. Id. at 549. But because the petition was mailed from Oklahoma City, simple logic led us to conclude that there was "no doubt whatsoever that the petition herein was timely mailed." Id. at 550. And we have taken judicial notice of United States Postal Service delivery standards to help establish when an item was mailed to the Court. Jordan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-15, at *3 n.2. Similarly, the Court has long acknowledged the delays caused by an irradiation process that its mail undergoes. See, e.g., Grossman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-164. As we recently described it, that process requires mail to be transported to New Jersey for irradiation and then returned to Washington, DC for delivery to the Court. Seely v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-6. at *8 n.3. Depending on the mailing location, the total delivery time can take 8 to 15 business days from the date of mailing. Id.
The record in this case establishes that the petition was timely mailed. The petition was mailed from California and received by the Court on April 12, 2021. The postal delivery standards provide that delivery from California to Washington, DC takes 5 days. See https://postalpro.usps.com/ppro-tools/service-standards-maps. Those same standards show that mail takes two days to travel between Washington, DC and New Jersey. Allowing for delivery from California to Washington, DC, with an added round trip to New Jersey, totals nine days, without accounting for processing time, weekends, or the time for the irradiation to take place. The petition in this case was delivered to the Court within sufficient time to make clear that it was timely mailed. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause served June 12, 2023, is discharged.