Roy A. Nutt & Bonnie W. Nutt ( 2023 )

United States Tax Court
160 T.C. No. 10ROY A. NUTT AND BONNIE W. NUTT,
Petitioners
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent
—————
Docket No. 15959-22. Filed May 2, 2023.
—————
Ps electronically filed a Petition with this Court at
12:05 a.m. on the morning after it was due. The United
States Tax Court is in the eastern time zone. Ps, however,
reside in and electronically filed their Petition from the
central time zone where it was 11:05 p.m. on the due date.
Held: A document that is electronically filed with the
Court is filed when it is received by the Court as
determined in reference to where the Court is located.
Held, further, because Ps electronically filed their
Petition after the due date in the eastern time zone, the
Petition was untimely, and we must dismiss this case for
lack of jurisdiction.
—————
Roy A. Nutt and Bonnie W. Nutt, pro sese.
Donielle A. Holmon, for respondent.
Served 05/02/23
2
OPINION
BUCH, Judge: The Commissioner mailed a notice of deficiency to
Roy and Bonnie Nutt, and the deadline to file a petition to seek
redetermination of the deficiency was stated to be July 18, 2022. The
Nutts electronically filed their Petition at 12:05 a.m. on July 19, 2022.
But they filed their Petition from Alabama, where it was 11:05 p.m. on
July 18, 2022.
A timely filed petition is a prerequisite to our jurisdiction in a
deficiency case. “Filing” ordinarily occurs when a petition is received by
the Tax Court in Washington, D.C., which is in the eastern time zone.
An electronic petition is timely if it is filed by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on
the last day for filing. Because the Nutts’ Petition was filed after the last
day for filing had ended in the eastern time zone, we must dismiss this
case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
The Commissioner mailed a notice of deficiency to the Nutts on
April 14, 2022, determining an income tax deficiency and an accuracy-
related penalty for 2019. Notwithstanding the actual mailing date, the
notice was dated April 18, 2022, and the notice stated that the last day
to file a petition with this Court was July 18, 2022. That date was a
Monday and was not a legal holiday in the District of Columbia. The
notice stated that the Nutts could “get a petition form and the rules for
filing from the Tax Court’s website at www.ustaxcourt.gov, or by
contacting the Office of the Clerk at . . . 400 Second Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20217.” The Commissioner also sent a letter dated
June 7, 2022, to the Nutts in which he reduced the amount of the
deficiency and reminded the Nutts of the July 18, 2022, deadline to file
a petition in the Tax Court.
While residing in Alabama, the Nutts electronically filed their
Petition. At the time of filing, the Court’s electronic case management
system (DAWSON) automatically applied a cover sheet to their Petition.
The cover sheet shows that the Court electronically received the Petition
at 12:05 a.m. eastern time on July 19, 2022, and filed it the same day.
When the Court received the Petition, it was 11:05 p.m. central time on
July 18, 2022, in Alabama.
The Commissioner filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction on September 1, 2022. The Commissioner contends that the
Court lacks jurisdiction because the Nutts’ Petition was not filed within
3
the time prescribed by section 6213(a). 1 We ordered the Nutts to file an
objection, if any, to the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction. The Nutts did not respond.
Discussion
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); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Our jurisdiction
in deficiency cases is predicated on a valid notice of deficiency and a
timely petition. I.R.C. §§ 6213, 7442; Rules 13, 20; Dees v. Commissioner,
148 T.C. 1, 3–4 (2017). Under section 6213(a), a petition must be filed
within 90 days after the notice of deficiency is mailed. If the notice of
deficiency specifies a 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(2001), aff’d, 293 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2002). If the last day 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 Nutts’ last day to file their Petition was Monday, July 18,
2022. Although the notice of deficiency was actually mailed on April 14,
2022, the notice stated that the last date to file a petition was July 18,
2022, and section 6213(a) allows the Nutts to rely on the date stated in
the notice.
A petition is ordinarily “filed” when it is received by the Tax Court
in Washington, D.C. See, e.g., Leventis v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 353, 354
(1968) (“[A] petition, in order to be timely filed, must be received by the
Court in Washington, D.C., on or before the 90th day.”). Although the
Court may sit at any place within the United States, its principal office,
its mailing address, and its Clerk’s office are in the District of Columbia.
I.R.C. § 7445; Rule 10. As a result, documents such as petitions are often
mailed to the Court for filing. And unless the timely mailing rule of
section 7502 applies, a document is not considered to be filed until it is
received. See Guralnik, 146 T.C. at 240, 242; Eichelburg v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-269, at *6–8.
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal
Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
4
The timely mailing rule does not apply to an electronically filed
petition. Under section 7502(a), a document that is mailed before it is
due but received after it is due is deemed to have been received when
mailed. But that rule applies only to documents that are delivered by
U.S. mail or a designated delivery service. I.R.C. § 7502(a)(1), (f).
Because an electronically filed petition is not delivered by U.S. mail or
a designated delivery service, the exception of section 7502 does not
apply. Where section 7502 does not apply, “we must look to the date the
‘petition’ was actually received and filed by the Court to determine
whether it was timely filed.” Cassell v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 313, 319
(1979).
The Tax Court Rules are consistent with this statutory
framework. Rule 22(a) provides that a paper “must be filed with the
Clerk in Washington, D.C., during business hours” unless it is
electronically filed. As for electronic filings, Rule 22(d) provides that a
“paper will be considered timely filed if it is electronically filed at or
before 11:59 p.m., eastern time, on the last day of the applicable period
for filing.”
The Court’s website also instructs petitioners how to
electronically file a petition through DAWSON in accordance with this
Rule. See United States Tax Court, How to eFile a Petition,
https://ustaxcourt.gov/efile_a_petition.html (last visited Mar. 30, 2023).
The first instruction states:
Check the Deadline for Filing
You may have received a notice in the mail from the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Court must receive
your electronically filed Petition no later than 11:59
pm Eastern Time on the last date to file. Petitions
received after this date may be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
Id.The Tax Court Rules in this regard are consistent with other
federal rules and caselaw. For example, Rule 6(a)(4) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure provides that the last day of a period for electronic
filing ends “at midnight in the court’s time zone.” (Emphasis added.)
Interpreting Federal Rule 6(a), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit observed that electronic filing systems have the effect
of extending the number of hours available for filing—from when the
5
Clerk’s office closes until 11:59 p.m. in the court’s time zone—but not
the number of days. Justice v. Town of Cicero, Ill., 682 F.3d 662, 664 (7th
Cir. 2012). As with Federal Rule 6(a), Rule 22(d) is consistent with the
idea that the Court’s electronic filing system serves as “a substitute for
the clerk of the court.” Royall v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO,
548 F.3d 137, 142 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The electronic filing system stands
in the Clerk’s place; it follows that if the “last day” has ended where the
Clerk’s office is standing, the last day for electronic filing has ended as
well.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
considered an issue similar to the one before us. See McCleskey v. CWG
Plastering, LLC, No. 1:15-cv-01284, 2020 WL 9601835 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 2,
2020). In McCleskey, the court entered a judgment on June 5, 2020,
holding CWG Plastering, LLC (CWG), liable to a fund for which
McCleskey was the trustee. A motion for a new trial or for relief from
the judgment was due to be filed “no later than 28 days after the entry
of judgment.” Id., 2020 WL 9601835, at *1 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b)).
Twenty-eight days from June 5, 2020, was July 3, 2020. CWG filed its
motion for new trial at 12:46 a.m. eastern time on July 4, 2020, in
Indianapolis, Indiana, which was 11:46 p.m. central time on July 3,
2020, in Evansville, Indiana. Id. These locations are important because
the case was pending in Indianapolis, which is in the eastern time zone,
but it had been tried in Evansville, which is in the central time zone. 2
Id. at *1 & n.1. CWG argued that the motion was timely because it was
filed on July 3, 2020, in the time zone where the case was tried. Id. at *1.
The court disagreed. Id. Citing a local rule that a “document due on a
particular day must be filed before midnight local time of the division
where the case is pending,” the court held that the motion was untimely
because it was due no later than 11:59 p.m. eastern time on July 3, 2020.
Id. (citing Justice, 682 F.3d at 664). Similar to that local rule, Rule 22(d)
dictates that the “last day” of a period for electronic filing ends at 11:59
p.m. eastern time, the Tax Court’s local time zone.
The Nutts’ Petition was untimely because it was filed in
Washington, D.C., after the last day for filing prescribed by section
6213(a). The period within which to file a petition cannot be extended by
the Court, and we must dismiss a case for lack of jurisdiction if the
petition is not filed within the prescribed time. Rule 25(b)(2)(C);
Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C., slip
2 See Standard Time Zone Boundary in the State of Indiana, 71 Fed. Reg. 3228(Jan. 20, 2006).
6
op. at 42 (Nov. 29, 2022); Blum v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 1128, 1131
(1986). If we were to hold that the Nutts’ electronically filed Petition was
timely because it was still the last day to file in Alabama, even though
the last day had ended in the District of Columbia, we would
impermissibly be extending the number of days available for filing. See
Justice, 682 F.3d at 664; McCleskey, 2020 WL 9601835, at *1.
Accordingly, we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
An order for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction will be entered.