Opinion
24895-22
07-24-2023
DANIELLE BITON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On November 7, 2022, the Court received the petition to commence this case. By Order issued November 29, 2022, the Court directed petitioner to file an amended petition. On March 28, 2023, petitioner filed a First Amended Petition in which petitioner indicated that she was seeking review of every type of notice of deficiency or notice of determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in this case. Petitioner did not specify a tax year with respect to which such purported notices relate. Petitioner states in the amended petition that the purpose of this case is "to bring Mr. Kevin McKirgan to answer." No notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court is attached to the petition or amended petition.
On June 1, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the grounds that respondent has issued no notice of deficiency, nor has respondent made any other determination, that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. On July 10, 2023, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. We may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In addition, 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 a timely filed petition. 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 petitioner has properly requested and received 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.
Other IRS notices which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, are a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability (or failure of IRS to make determination within 6 months after election or request for relief), a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim (or failure of IRS to make final determination within 180 days after claim for abatement), a notice of determination of worker classification, a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action, and a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent Federal tax debt to the Department of State.
In her objection, petitioner requests that the Court hear her case despite respondent's motion to dismiss. Petitioner, however, has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that she was issued any notice of deficiency, or that respondent has made any other determinatio,n sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. Accordingly, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
In view 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.