Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01671/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01671-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Appellee
Janice E. McDonald
Appellant
William H. McDonald
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1671

___________

Janice E. McDonald; *

William H. McDonald, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United

v. * States Tax Court.

*

Commissioner of Internal * [UNPUBLISHED]

Revenue, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 18, 2009

Filed: January 19, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On April 6, 2006, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, pursuant to 26 U.S.C.

§ 6212, issued a notice of deficiency to the McDonalds for the taxable year 2002. In

response, on July 12, 2006, the McDonalds mailed a petition to the Tax Court

challenging the deficiency notice pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6213. Section 6213 states

that within ninety days after the notice of deficiency is mailed, the taxpayer may file

Appellate Case: 09-1671 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2010 Entry ID: 3625293
1

Although the McDonalds' petition was signed and dated July 3, 2006, it was

not postmarked until July 12, 2006, and was not received by the Tax Court until July

17, 2006. The ninety day period expired July 5, 2006.

2

The Honorable Harry A. Haines, United States Tax Court Judge.

-2-

a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.1

 26 U.S.C. §

6213(a). Both parties filed motions to dismiss, and the Tax Court2

 granted the

Commissioner's motion. The Tax Court reasoned that because the McDonalds filed

their action more than ninety days after the Commissioner issued the notice of

deficiency, it did not have jurisdiction over the action.

The Tax Court's limited jurisdiction depends upon express statutory authority.

Comm'r v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987). Because the McDonalds did not meet the

jurisdictional timely filing requirement in 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a), the Tax Court did not

have jurisdiction and correctly dismissed the case. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1671 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2010 Entry ID: 3625293