Opinion
10765-23
09-29-2023
MICHELLE DAVIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On June 29, 2023, the Court received from petitioner a letter, which was filed as the petition to commence this case. While the relief petitioner seeks in this case is not clear, it appears petitioner may be seeking review with respect to her 2017 and 2022 tax years.
On August 4, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. On August 16, 2023, respondent filed a First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. As grounds for his motion, as supplemented, respondent asserts that no notice of deficiency has been issued, nor has respondent made any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioner's 2017 or 2022 tax years. On September 12, 2023, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, As Supplemented.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. In a deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction generally depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2020Hallmark 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 the taxpayer has properly requested 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 types of 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 to respondent's motion, as supplemented, petitioner does not address respondent's jurisdictional allegations. Rather, petitioner appears to argue the merits of her case. However, if the Court lacks jurisdiction, we cannot reach the merits of a case.
Here, petitioner has not demonstrated that she was issued any notice of deficiency, or that respondent made any other determination, that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court concerning her 2017 or 2022 tax years.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, as supplemented, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.