                    T.C. Summary Opinion 2007-14



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               GENE AUTRY GLENN, II, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 12877-06S.             Filed January 23, 2007.



     Gene Autry Glenn, II, pro se.

     James H. Harris, Jr., for respondent.




     RUWE, Judge:   This case was petitioned pursuant to section

74631 in effect when the petition was filed.    The decision to be

entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion

should not be cited as authority.



     1
       Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                 - 2 -

     This case is before the Court on respondent’s motion to

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.     For the reasons stated below,

we must grant respondent’s motion.

                               Background

     On July 5, 2006, petitioner filed a petition with this Court

for relief pursuant to section 6015 with regard to the taxable

year 2003.   Attached to the petition is a letter from the

Internal Revenue Service to petitioner dated November 25, 2005,

informing petitioner that a “preliminary determination” had been

made regarding his request for relief pursuant to section 6015.

     On November 30, 2006, respondent filed a motion to dismiss

for lack of jurisdiction (motion to dismiss), on the ground that

the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section

6015(e)(1)(A).   Attached to respondent’s motion is a computerized

version of the Final Notice of Determination (final notice) sent

to petitioner denying petitioner’s request for section 6015

relief.   The final notice is dated January 17, 2006.

                               Discussion

     The jurisdiction of this Court depends on the timely filing

of a petition.   Rule 13(c).    Section 6015(e)(1)(A) requires that

a petition to determine relief from joint and several liability

must be filed no later than the close of the 90th day after “the

date the Secretary mails, by certified or registered mail to the
                                - 3 -

taxpayer’s last known address, notice of the Secretary’s final

determination of relief available to the individual”.2

     Respondent alleges that the final notice was sent to

petitioner’s last known address by certified mail on January 26,

2006.    Respondent alleges further that the 90-day period for

timely filing a petition with this Court from the final notice

expired on April 26, 2006, 90 days after the mailing of the final

notice.    The petition was filed on July 5, 2006, 160 days after

the mailing of the final notice.

     In his response to respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack

of jurisdiction, petitioner does not dispute respondent’s

allegations or that his petition was filed after the statutory

90-day limit had passed.    Petitioner simply claims that the delay

in filing the petition was due to his “trying to compile the

necessary Forms to send in as well as compiling proof of why

relief is [in] order.”    Petitioner also cites his lack of

Internet access and a need to “wait for conventional mail” as

reasons for his delay.

     Unfortunately for petitioner, section 6015 contains nothing

to extend the 90-day filing period that would apply to the facts


     2
       The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-
432, div. C, sec. 408, 120 Stat. 3061, amended sec. 6015(e)(1)
and applies to all liabilities for taxes arising or remaining
unpaid on or after Dec. 20, 2006, the day of the enactment.
However, the amendment made no change to the 90-day limit allowed
for filing a petition, and thus has no bearing on the outcome of
this case.
                               - 4 -

of this case.   Our jurisdiction is dependent upon the filing

requirements in section 6015(e), and we have no authority to

waive these requirements.   Accordingly, the petition was

untimely, and we must grant respondent’s motion to dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction.

                                            An appropriate order of

                                       dismissal will be entered.
