Opinion
9097-24
09-11-2024
YUNUS D. MUHAMMAD, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Lewis R. Carluzzo Chief Special Trial Judge
This case for the redetermination of a deficiency is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed July 10, 2024. Respondent's motion is based upon the ground that the petition was not filed within the period prescribed in I.R.C. section 6213(a). Pursuant to prior notice, respondent's motion was called for hearing at 1:30 p.m. in Dallas, Texas, on September 9, 2024. Counsel for respondent appeared and argued in support of the motion. There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner.
Apparently, petitioner was present in the courtroom earlier in the day, but he did not remain for the hearing. He might have met with volunteer attorneys from the Texas A&M University Low Income Taxpayer Clinic or the Calendar Call Program offered by the State Bar of Texas before he left. The Court attempted to secure interpreter services as requested by petitioner but was unable to do so.
In any event, the facts relied upon by respondent in support of the motion are easily summarized and not in dispute. In a notice of deficiency (notice) dated December 4, 2023, and sent to petitioner by certified mail to his last known address a few days earlier, respondent determined a deficiency in his 2021 federal income tax and imposed an I.R.C. section 6662(a) penalty. The last day to have filed a petition in this Court to challenge the determinations made in the notice was March 4, 2024. See I.R.C. section 6213(a).
The petition was mailed to the Court on May 22, 2024, and it was received by the Court and filed on May 31, 2024, well beyond the March 4, 2024, deadline. Because the petition was not filed timely, the Court is without jurisdiction in this matter. See Rochelle v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), aff'g 116 T.C. 356 (2001); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022). It follows and is
ORDERED that respondent's motion is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the petition was not filed within the period prescribed by I.R.C. section 6213(a).