Opinion
CASE NO. 1:04 CV 0521
April 21, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
On March 16, 2004, pro se plaintiff Randy A. Belmont filed/this action against the United States of America, Mr. Belmont seeks to set aside a Notice of Determination issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on February 17, 2004. The Determination resulted from a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing held on November 26, 2003 between Mr. Belmont and I.R.S. Settlement Officer Spencer Dolin. Mr. Belmont asserts he is entitled to relief pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1)(A) because the I.R.S. Appeals Officer failed to conduct the CDP hearing in accordance with the law.
Mr. Belmont also brought his wife Christina, a witness, Dale Roginski, and court reporter Norma Carlin. to the CDP hearing.
Background
On or about December 31, 1999, Mr. Belmont and his wife, Christina, filed an I.R.S. Form 1040 joint income tax return indicating "0" income. Although the Belmonts reported no income they requested a refund for the amount of income tax which had been, withheld by the I.R.S. In response, the I.R.S. adjusted their fax return based on information It received indicating that the Belmonts had received taxable income from various sources. A Notice of Deficiency was sent the Belmonts, dated June 20, 2001, which outlined proposed adjustments and granted them until September 18, 2001 to petition the Tax Court if they chose to contest the assessment. The deadline for petitioning the assessment passed and the relevant tax. was assessed on October 15, 2001.
The I.R.S. subsequently sent notices to the Belmonts requesting payment of the balance due. After no response was received, a Notice of Federal Tax Lien filing was requested. A "Letter 3172, Notice of Federal Tax Lien and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320," dated January 13, 2003, was sent to the plaintiff and his wife, Mr., Belmont's responsive request for a CDP hearing was received by the I.R.S. on January 27, 2003.
A CDP hearing was held on November 26, 2003. During the hearing, Mr. Belmont questioned the validity of the assessment in his attached Form 12153. He also questioned the authority of the Settlement Officer who conducted the hearing.
A Notice of Determination, was issued on February 17, 2004 wherein the I.R.S. Appeals Team Manager determined that the filing of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien was an appropriate action which should be sustained. Mr. Belmont was advised of his right to dispute the determination by filing a petition, with the United States Tax Court. See Ex.A at 1. Instead, he filed a petition in this court asserting that the I.R.S. `s determination was in violation of the law as follows:
a. The United States could not legally place a lien, and, levy his property pursuant to Internal Revenue Codes 6321 and 6331 without a court order, writ of garnishment or writ of attachment with respect to any of his property.
b. The Appeals Officer refused to provide "verification from the Secretary."
c. He never received a valid. Deficiency Notice because it was not signed by the Secretary or someone with delegated authority from the Secretary.
d. No valid assessment was ever made for the income taxes allegedly due.
e. The Appeals Officer ended the meeting before collection alternatives could, be discussed.
f. The Appeals Officer refused, to discuss the subject involving the Notice and Demand for payment.
Lack of Jurisdiction
Federal courts are always "under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction," FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231(1990) and a federal court may not entertain an action over which, it has no jurisdiction. See Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701 (1982). Without jurisdiction, a court cannot proceed at all in. any cause.See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94(1998)("when [jurisdiction] . . . ceases to exist, the only function remaining to court is that of announcing the fact and, dismissing cause.") (citation omitted).The Notice of Federal Tax Lien, which led. to the Appeals' Determination before this court, was in accordance with Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 6320 relating to income tax liabilities for the 1999 tax year. The Tax Court has interpreted section 6330(d)(1) to provide it jurisdiction except in cases where it normally does not have jurisdiction over the underlying liability. Moore v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 171 (2000). Normally, the Tax Court does has jurisdiction over cases involving where the underlying liability involves income taxes. Marino v. Brown, 357 F.3d 143, 145 (2004). The Sixth Circuit has held that "[t]he Tax Court has jurisdiction over income tax issues and liabilities . . .[t]hus, if the § 6330 proceeding involves income tax. issues, the district court does not have jurisdiction to consider the case." White v. United States, 250 F. Supp.2d 919, 21-22 (M.D. Tenn. 2003) (quoting Diefenbaugh v. White, No. 00-3344, 2000 WL 1679510, at *1 (6th Cir. Nov. 10, 2000)). It is clear, therefore, that it is the Tax Court, not the District Court, which has jurisdiction over the appeal of administrative determinations where the underlying tax liability concerns unpaid income taxes, as opposed to the other taxes. See, e.g., Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-182 (2000); Danner v. United states, 208 F. Supp.2d 1166 (E.D. Wash. 2002); Gillett v. United States, 233 F. Supp.2d 874 (W.D.Mich. 2002).
See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d.)(1) (allowing appeal from lien determination "to the Tax Court . . . or . . . if the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction of the underlying tax liability, to a district court of the United States"); 26 C.F.R. § 301.6230(f)(2), A F3 [Answer to Question F3] ("If the Tax Court would have jurisdiction, over the type of tax specified in the CDP Notice (for example, income . . . taxes), then the taxpayer must seek judicial review by the Tax Court.").
Based on the foregoing, this case is dismissed without prejudice. Inasmuch as this petition has been filed in an incorrect court, Mr. Belmont shall have 30 days after this determination to file his appeal with the United States Tax. Court. 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1).White, 250 F. Supp.2d at 921-22.
IT IS SO ORDERED.