Janice McDonald, et al v. CIR, No. 09-1671 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Federal Tax. The Tax Court did not err in dismissing petitioners' request for a redetermination of a deficiency as the request was untimely and the Tax Court did not have jurisdiction.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-1671 ___________ Janice E. McDonald; William H. McDonald, Appellants, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee. * * * * * Appeal from the United * States Tax Court. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * * ___________ Submitted: November 18, 2009 Filed: January 19, 2010 ___________ Before MELLOY, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.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 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. ______________________________ 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-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
