Opinion
8016-23
03-04-2024
JOSEPH HENRY BLUE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
Pending before the Court in this case is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed July 11, 2023. Therein respondent moves that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no notice has been sent to petitioner with respect to taxable year 2020, or any other year, that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Petitioner opposes the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
On May 5, 2023, petitioner filed the Petition in the above-docketed matter, indicating that he sought review of a purported notice of determination concerning collection action for taxable year 2020. Petitioner did not attach to the Petition a copy of a notice of determination concerning collection action for 2020. Instead, petitioner attached a Letter 5071C dated July 7, 2022, and a Notice CP13 dated October 17, 2022, both of which concern petitioner's 2020 taxable year. Petitioner generally alleges in the Petition that the IRS erred by failing to issue so-called economic impact payments to him for 2020.
As noted above, on July 11, 2023, respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss pending before the Court. By Order served July 13, 2023, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to the Motion. On October 10, 2023, petitioner filed an Objection. To date, no notice of determination or any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case appears in the record.
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See I.R.C. § 7442; Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 1, 11 (2021). I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters. Where, as here, this Court's jurisdiction is duly challenged, our jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown by the party seeking to invoke that jurisdiction. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff 'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975). To meet this burden, the party "must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270.
In a collection due process case, our jurisdiction depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination. See I.R.C. §§ 6320(c), 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8 (2004), aff 'd, 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000). It follows that when a valid notice of determination has not been issued to the taxpayer, we are obliged to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. See Offiler, 114 T.C. at 498; Mighty v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-44, at *2 n.2.
To date, petitioner has failed to establish that he has been issued a notice of determination or any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case. Moreover, our own review of the record reveals no indication that respondent has acted-or failed to act-in any manner that could support the Court's jurisdiction in this case. Consequently, petitioner has failed to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction, and we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270; see also Garland v. Commissioner, 786 Fed.Appx. 240 (11th Cir. 2019) (affirming an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where the taxpayers had failed to produce a notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or any other determination pertaining to the taxable years raised in the petition).
To the extent petitioner may be seeking a refund, the Tax Court is not the proper court in which to file a lawsuit challenging the IRS's denial of a claim for refund. A taxpayer may seek a judicial remedy for wrongful denial of claims for refund -i.e., a refund suit in compliance with I.R.C. sections 6532(a)(1) and 7422(a)-only in the United States Court of Federal Claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), or in Federal district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). Those statutes do not confer refund jurisdiction on the Tax Court.
It is accordingly
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion to Dismiss is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.