Opinion
6489-22
02-17-2023
APOLO ASTUDILLO TACUBA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
KATHLEEN KERRIGAN, CHIEF JUDGE
On May 19, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. Although the Court provided petitioner the opportunity to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion, petitioner has not done so.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 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 deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition 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). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988).
The record in this case establishes that the petition was not timely filed and, accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. However, although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may, if he wishes, continue to pursue an administrative resolution of petitioner's 2019 tax liability directly with the IRS.
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.