Opinion
15988-22L
03-17-2023
GARRY R. CECIL & SHARON CECIL, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
David Gustafson, Judge
Now before us is the Commissioner's motion to dismiss petitioner Sharon Cecil from this collection due process ("CDP") case. Petitioners did not respond to the motion. We will grant the motion and will dismiss Sharon Cecil.
Background
On June 22, 2022, the Independent Office of Appeals of the Internal Revenue Service issued a "Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action" (Doc. 1, Attachment) to Garry R. Cecil, concerning income tax liabilities for 2014 and 2016. On July 8, 2022, Mr. Cecil timely mailed to the Tax Court a letter that we treated as a petition. The letter was signed by both Garry R. Cecil and Sharon Cecil, and both their names were included as petitioners in the caption of this case.
On February 6, 2023, the Commissioner filed a motion (Doc. 10) to dismiss petitioner Sharon Cecil from this case. The motion points out that the notice of determination is addressed to Mr. Cecil but not to Ms. Cecil, and that the petition does not allege that any notice of determination (nor any other notice that might give to the Tax Court jurisdiction over Ms. Cecil) was mailed to Ms. Cecil.
On February 9, 2023, we issued an order (Doc. 11) directing petitioners to file a response to the motion no later than March 6, 2023. They have not filed a response.
Discussion
Petitioner has the burden to demonstrate that the Court has jurisdiction over the petition. Section 6330(a)(1) requires the IRS, before pursuing collection by levy, to serve a notice on a "person"; section 6330(b)(1) entitles the "person" to request a hearing before IRS Appeals; section 6330(c)(3) authorizes IRS Appeals to issue a determination as to the issues raised in that hearing; and section 6330(d)(1) entitled the "person" who received the determination to file a petition with the Tax Court and confers on the Tax Court "jurisdiction with respect to such matter". Mr. Cecil showed that this process was completed as to him and that a notice of determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction under section 6330(d)(1), was issued to him.
But no such showing was made as to Ms. Cecil. If she did not receive a notice of determination, then she lacks the predicate for filing a CDP petition in the Tax Court. The fact that her husband received a notice of determination does not entitle her to file a petition. See Moorhous v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 263, 271-272 (2001).
It is therefore
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is granted and that Sharon Cecil is dismissed from this case. It is further
ORDERED that the caption in this case is amended to read: "Garry R. Cecil, Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent."