In Robert Donlan, Jr. and Kegan Donlan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 164 T.C. No. 3, the U.S. Tax Court addressed the issue of whether a petition filed using the court’s online petition generator, which does not bear a handwritten signature, is considered properly signed under the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Commissioner filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, arguing that the petition was not properly signed. The Tax Court denied the Commissioner’s motion, holding that a person’s name on a signature block on a paper that the person authorized to be filed electronically constitutes the person’s signature, as per Tax Court Rule 23(a)(3).

Facts of the Case

The Commissioner mailed the Donlans a Notice of Deficiency dated July 22, 2024, with a deadline of October 21, 2024, to file a petition. On October 21, 2024, the Donlans electronically filed a petition using the Tax Court’s online petition generator. Because the petition was computer-generated, it did not include handwritten signatures; instead, it contained a block with the typewritten names and contact information for each of the Donlans. The Commissioner then filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, arguing that the petition was not signed by either taxpayer and, therefore, the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction.

Taxpayers’ Arguments

The document does not explicitly state the taxpayers’ arguments, but it can be inferred that the taxpayers believed the electronic filing, using the online petition generator provided by the Court, should be considered a valid signature.

Tax Court’s Analysis

The Tax Court analyzed the issue based on its own rules and procedures, referencing Tax Court Rule 23(a)(3), which states that “a person’s name on a signature block on a paper that the person authorized to be filed electronically, and that is so filed, constitutes the person’s signature”. The Court also noted that Rule 34(e) directs to Rule 23(a)(3) for the signature requirement of petitions filed electronically. The Tax Court noted the availability of the “Petition (Simplified Form)” (Form 2) which includes signature blocks for taxpayers or counsel to sign. The Court acknowledged that while petitions created with the online petition generator are materially identical to Form 2, there are superficial differences. For instance, Form 2 includes check boxes for IRS actions being disputed, while the online petition generator uses a dropdown menu. Also, Form 2 has a traditional signature block for handwritten signatures, which is absent in petitions created via the online generator. The Court also cited the Self-Represented (Pro Se) Electronic Filing Instructions, which state that the combination of a DAWSON username (email address) and password serves as the signature of the individual filing the document. It further explained that if a spouse authorizes the filing of an electronic petition, the signature block auto-generated by DAWSON serves as the spouse’s signature. The Tax Court also drew parallels to the rules of other courts, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which similarly recognize electronic signatures. The Court also mentioned that the IRS accepts electronic signatures as well.

Court’s Findings

The Tax Court held that the Donlans’ petition was properly signed under the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Court concluded that because the Donlans used the online petition generator, which includes each petitioning taxpayer’s name as part of a signature block, the signature requirement was satisfied. Therefore, the Court denied the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

Prepared with assistance from NotebookLM.