Vernon L. Correia Charlotte M. Correia v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 58 F.3d 468 (9th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Vernon L. Correia Charlotte M. Correia v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 58 F.3d 468 (9th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the timely filing of a-petition for redetermination is a jurisdictional requirement.”
19 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: McWhinney v. Commissioner (ca9, 2017-10-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) McWhinney v. Commissioner
9th Cir. · 2017 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the timely filing of a-petition for redetermination is a jurisdictional requirement.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hallmark Research Collective (2×)
Tax Ct. · 2022 · confidence medium
Memo. 1993-143 ; Correia v. Commissioner, 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). 27 On October 14, 1981, the Fifth Circuit was divided into the Fifth Circuit and newly formed Eleventh Circuit.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marco A. Frausto, Inc. v. Commissioner
9th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
Correia v. Comm’r, 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir. 1995).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alvin Kanofsky v. Commissioner of Internal Reven
3rd Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
Although the mailbox rule of § 7502 did not originally apply to "documents delivered by private companies such as Federal Express," Correia v. Comm’r, 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam), it now does, with certain limitations.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Castillo, Ex Parte Mario Amaro
Tex. Crim. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
See Petrulis v. Commissioner , 938 F.2d 78, 80-81 (7th Cir. 1991); Pugsley v. Commissioner , 749 F.2d 691, 693 (11th Cir. 1985); Correia v. Commissioner , 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir. 1995). 18.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Castillo, Ex Parte Mario Amaro (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Congress enacted section 7502 to eliminate the inequities resulting from variations in postal performance when a document is timely mailed.”). 16 26 U.S.C. § 7502 (a)-(b). 17 See Petrulis v. Commissioner, 938 F.2d 78, 80-81 (7th Cir. 1991); Pugsley v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 691, 693 (11th Cir. 1985); Correia v. Commissioner, 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir. 1995).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Imam v. Commissioner
9th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
See 26 U.S.C. § 6213 (a); Correia v. Comm’r, 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“The timely filing of a petition for redetermination is a jurisdictional requirement.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Martin v. Commissioner, IRS
4th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Correia v. Commissioner, 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir.1995).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lincir v. Commissioner
9th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Correia v. Commissioner, 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir. 1995). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Schulman
9th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 , 108 S.Ct. 217, 219 , 98 L.Ed.2d 2 (1987) (noting that the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers); Correia v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that the timely filing of a petition for redetermination is a jurisdictional requirement). 14 Schulman argues that the fact that the IRS officer agreed with his counsel regarding the invalidity of the discharge is a ground for overturning the district court's order.
cited Cited "see" King v. Commissioner
7th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Correia v. Comm’r, 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir.1995); Treaty Pines Inv.
cited Cited "see" Wong v. Commissioner
9th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Correia v. Commissioner, 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir.1995).
cited Cited "see" Condor International, Inc., N.K.A. Applied Resources, Inc. v. Commissioner Internal Revenue Service, Condor International, Inc., N.K.A. Applied Resources, Inc. James E. Welsh Nancy S. Welsh, Petitioners-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Commissioner Internal Revenue Service, Respondent-Appellee/cross-Appellant
9th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Correia v. C.I.R., 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir.1995).
cited Cited "see" Condor International, Inc. v. Commissioner Internal Revenue Service
9th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Correia v. C.I.R., 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir.1995).
discussed Cited "see" Fujioka
unknown court · Norman H.\"" · signal: see · confidence high
See Correia v. Commissioner, 58 F.3d 468 (9th Cir. 1995) per curiam, affg. an order of this Court; Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22 , 27 (1989) ; Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019 , 1025 (1988) ; Lindemood v. Commissioner, T.C.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." David Tourgeman v. Nelson & Kennard
9th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence medium
But “[w]hatever merits these and other policy arguments may have, it is not the province of this Court to rewrite the statute to accommodate them.” Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 10 (2000) (per curiam); see also Correia v. C.I.R., 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Although [plaintiffs] put forth what may be a legitimate policy rationale[,] . . . it is for Congress, not the courts, to make such a change.” (citation omitted)).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Lisa Edwards v. Commissioner of IRS
D.C. Cir. · 2015 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Correia v. Commissioner, 58 F.3d 468, 469 (9th Cir.1995); Zigmont v. Commissioner, 97 T.C.M.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Vernon L. CORREIA; Charlotte M. Correia, Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee
94-70022.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 23, 1995.
58 F.3d 468
95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4798
1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 15530
1995 WL 371607
Christopher L. Haberman, Bourdette & Parters, Visalia, CA, for petitioners-appellants., Gary R. Allen, Gilbert S. Rothenberg, Andrea R. Tebbets, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, DC, for respondent-appel-lee.
Goodwin, Farris, Kleinfeld.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 54%
PER CURIAM:

Taxpayers Vernon L. Correia and Charlotte M. Correia timely appeal the Tax Court’s dismissal of their petition for rede-termination of deficiency. The Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. We review de novo, Billingsley v. Commissioner, 868 F.2d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir.1989), and affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued a statutory notice of deficiency to Taxpayers on April 9, 1998. See 26 U.S.C. § 6211. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a), Taxpayers had 90 days — until July 8, 1993— to file their petition for redetermination. On July 8 Taxpayers delivered their petition to Federal Express for delivery to the Tax Court. The petition was not delivered to the Tax Court until July 9. The Tax Court dismissed the petition as untimely.

II. DISCUSSION

The timely filing of a petition for redetermination is a jurisdictional requirement. Shipley v. Commissioner, 572 F.2d 212, 213 (9th Cir.1977). It is undisputed that Taxpayers’ petition was not timely received by the Tax Court. However, Taxpayers contend that their otherwise untimely petition is saved by the timely-mailing-as-timely-filing provision of 26 U.S.C. § 7502. Under § 7502, for a document “delivered by United States mail ..., the date of the United States postmark ... shall be deemed to be the date of delivery.” § 7502(a).

Section 7502 by its plain and unambiguous language applies to documents delivered by the United States Postal Service. It does not apply to documents delivered by private companies such as Federal Express. Petrulis v. Commissioner, 938 F.2d 78, 80 (7th Cir.1991); Pugsley v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 691, 693 (11th Cir.1985); see Treas.Reg. § 301.7502-1(c). Nonetheless, Taxpayers contend that because § 7502 and its corresponding regulations reflect outdated notions of reliable delivery methods, we should “adopt a new rule” extending the scope of § 7502 to private delivery services. Although Taxpayers put forth what may be a legitimate policy rationale for extending the rule to private delivery services, it is for Congress, not the courts, to make such a change. Petrulis, 938 F.2d at 81.

Taxpayers also argue that the Tax Court violated their due process rights by sua sponte notifying the Commissioner of the late filing. Subject matter jurisdiction in the Tax Court cannot be conferred by the parties’ consent or waiver. Clapp v. Commissioner, 875 F.2d 1396, 1398 (9th Cir.1989). The Tax Court properly examined its own jurisdiction. See id. at 1399 (jurisdiction of Tax Court reviewed in same manner as jurisdiction of Article III courts); FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. 596, 607, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) (“federal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction”). Its conduct did not violate due process.

AFFIRMED.