Opinion
36746-21
06-17-2022
DON CHAPIN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Albert G. Lauber Judge
On December 13, 2021, petitioner filed a Petition reciting various criticisms of the way the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) has communicated with him about his 2019 and 2020 Federal income tax returns. He did not attach a notice of deficiency for 2019 or 2020, a notice of determination regarding collection action for 2019 or 2020, or any type of IRS notice for any tax year.
This case was calendared on the Court's June 13, 2022, remote trial session. On March 15, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction representing that he had searched IRS records for tax years 2019 and 2020 and failed to locate a notice of deficiency, a notice of determination, or any other notice sufficient to confer on this Court jurisdiction over this case.
We directed petitioner to respond to respondent's Motion by April 18, 2022. We warned him that, if he failed to respond, "the Court will likely grant the Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction." Petitioner did not respond to our order by April 18 or subsequently.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. See I.R.C. § 7442. Our jurisdiction over a deficiency case is conditioned on the IRS's issuance of a statutory notice of deficiency. See Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); I.R.C. § 6213(a). Similarly, our jurisdiction over a collection due process case is conditioned on the IRS's issuance of a notice of determination concerning collection action. See Moorhous v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 263, 269 (2001); I.R.C. §§ 6320(c), 6330(d)(1). The party seeking to invoke our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction to decide the case. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001).
Petitioner has not complied with our order to respond to the Motion and has not provided us with any notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or other notice that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 15, 2022, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.