Opinion
19388-22
01-05-2023
HERBERT L. DENOURIE & MARY C. DENOURIE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
No notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court with respect to petitioner Herbert L. deNourie was attached to the petition filed to commence this case. On September 29, 2022, respondent filed a motion to dismiss Mr. deNourie on the ground no notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court in this case was issued to him. Although Mr. deNourie filed an objection to the motion on November 15, 2022, the fact that petitioners filed a joint return does not confer jurisdiction upon the Court in this proceeding. Moreover, the Court does not recognize a designation as "pro se Spouse Advocate" that would enable Mr. deNourie to represent his wife before the Court in her proceedings.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. We may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In addition, jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a taxpayer invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the taxpayer's case. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960). Nothing in this record suggests that we have jurisdiction over Mr. deNourie, and accordingly, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Herbert L. deNourie and to Change Caption is granted. It is further
ORDERED that the caption of this case is changed to "Mary C. deNourie, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent".