Opinion
24963-22
03-13-2023
BAYARD DAVIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
The petition underlying the above-docketed proceeding was filed on November 10, 2022. Taxable years 2020, 2021, and 2022 seemed to be indicated as potential periods in contention. No notices of deficiency or determination issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were attached to the petition. Rather, petitioner's statements centered on complaints pertaining to petitioner's failure to receive so-called economic impact stimulus payments.
Subsequently, on January 20, 2023, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the grounds that no notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner's tax years 2020, 2021, and 2022, including any determination pursuant to section 7623, I.R.C., that would confer jurisdiction on the Court, as of the date the petition herein was filed.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In a case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the issuance by the Commissioner of a valid notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).
Similarly, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination concerning collection action under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C., depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C. Secs. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), I.R.C.; Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (2000). A condition precedent to the issuance of a notice of determination is the requirement that a taxpayer have requested a hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals in reference to an underlying Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320, Final Notice of Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (or the equivalent Notice CP90, Intent to seize your assets and notice of your right to a hearing, depending on the version of the form used), or analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under section 6330(f), I.R.C. (e.g., a Notice of Levy on Your State Tax Refund and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing).
Jurisdiction under section 7623(b)(4), I.R.C., involving a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Whistleblower Action is premised on a determination regarding an award to a whistleblower based on information provided by such individual to the Secretary.
Other types of IRS notice which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, include a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief From Joint and Several Liability, a Notice of Final Determination Not To Abate Interest, a Notice of Determination of Worker Classification, or a Notice of Certification of Your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt to the State Department. No pertinent claims involving section 6015, 6404(h), 7436, or 7345, I.R.C., respectively, have been implicated here. Similarly absent is any suggestion that the perquisites have been met to support one of the statutorily described declaratory judgment actions that may be undertaken by the Court.
Petitioner was served with copy of respondent's motion and on February 9, 2023, filed a notice of objection. Therein, petitioner did not directly counter the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion, i.e., petitioner did not show that the IRS had sent a relevant notice of deficiency or determination or any other jurisdictional notice for 2020, 2021, 2022 or any other year. Instead, petitioner cited various sections of the Internal Revenue Code and alleged without cogent explanation that they somehow provided jurisdiction in this proceeding. The earlier petition had emphasized claims of entitlement to economic impact stimulus payments as an incarcerated inmate and claimed that he was being discriminated against by the IRS. Conversely, petitioner did not allude to or attach any further notices from the IRS that could bear upon the jurisdictional query before the Court.
Thus, the record at this juncture suggests that petitioner may have sought the assistance of the Court after having become frustrated with administrative actions by the IRS and any attempts to work with the agency but that the petition here was not based upon or instigated by a specific IRS notice expressly providing petitioner with the right to contest a particular IRS determination in this Court. Suffice it to say that no IRS communication supplied or referenced by petitioner to date constitutes, or can substitute for, a notice of deficiency issued pursuant to 6212, I.R.C., a notice of determination issued pursuant to sections 6320 and/or 6330, I.R.C., or any other of the narrow class of specified determinations by the IRS that can open the door to the Tax Court for purposes of this case. To the contrary, petitioner's apparently expansive view of the Court's authority fails to comport with the limited nature of the jurisdiction set forth in the statutory parameters set forth above. Stated otherwise, the Tax Court has no role or authority in the administration of the so-called economic stimulus payments.
In conclusion then, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioner's situation and understands the challenges of the circumstances faced and the good faith efforts made, the Court on the present record lacks jurisdiction in this case to review any action (or inaction) by respondent in regard to petitioner's taxes. Congress has granted the Tax Court no authority to afford any remedy in the circumstances evidenced by this proceeding, regardless of the merits of petitioner's complaints.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.