Opinion
26478-22
04-18-2023
JORGE NEAL ARCHILLA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
On February 3, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that (1) as to a notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2018 tax year, the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code, and (2) respondent has not made any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Although the Court provided petitioner the opportunity to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion, petitioner has not done so.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a taxpayer invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the taxpayer's case. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960).
In a deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988).
Similarly, in a case seeking review of certain IRS collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination (after the taxpayer has properly requested a collection due process hearing) under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 and the filing by the taxpayer of a petition concerning that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 38 (2005); I.R.C. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The record in this case establishes that the petition was not timely filed as to the notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2018 tax year. Nor has petitioner produced or otherwise demonstrated that respondent has made any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.