Opinion
10041-23
02-26-2024
TIMMY LYNN DUKE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
Pending before the Court in this case is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed July 26, 2023. Therein, respondent moves that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency, nor any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court in this case, has been issued to petitioner. Petitioner opposes the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
The Petition filed to commence this case on June 15, 2023, asserts that "this action is brought against the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service for the recovery of income taxes never refunded (paid) to Plaintiff." The Petition further asserts that "Plaintiff has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain Income Tax Refund[s] for the Tax Year's [sic] 2018 and 2019 from the Internal Revenue Service." The Petition asserts that the Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1346(a)(1).
See infra p. 2 n.3.
As noted above, on July 26, 2023, respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss pending before the Court. By Order served July 28, 2023, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to the Motion. On August 16, 2023, petitioner filed such an Objection, and on September 18, 2023, December 22, 2023, and February 21, 2024, made additional filings with the Court. To date, no notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case, appears in the record.
Discussion
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See § 7442; Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 1, 11 (2021). Where, as here, this Court's jurisdiction is duly challenged, our jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown by the party seeking to invoke that jurisdiction. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975). To meet this burden, the party "must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, our jurisdiction depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency. See §§ 6212, 6213; Rule 13(a); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 139-40 (2022). Indeed, because the issuance of a notice of deficiency is a prerequisite to invoking this Court's deficiency jurisdiction, the notice is often called the taxpayer's "ticket to the Tax Court." Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).
Similarly, our jurisdiction in the collection due process context depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination. See §§ 6320(c), 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b); Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8 (2004), aff'd, 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000). It follows that when a valid notice of determination has not been issued to the taxpayer, we are obliged to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. See Offiler, 114 T.C. at 498; Mighty v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-44, slip op. at *2 n.2.
To date, petitioner has failed to establish that he has been issued a notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case. Moreover, our own review of the record reveals no indication that respondent has acted-or failed to act-in any manner that could support the Court's jurisdiction in this case. Consequently, petitioner has failed to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction, and we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270; see also Garland v. Commissioner, 786 Fed.Appx. 240 (11th Cir. 2019) (affirming an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where the taxpayers had failed to produce a notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or any other determination pertaining to the taxable years raised in the petition). It is accordingly
Because the Petition seeks to challenge the IRS's purported denial of a claim for refund, we inform petitioner that the Tax Court is not the proper forum for such a suit. A taxpayer may file a refund suit in compliance with sections 6532(a)(1) and 7422(a) only in the United States Court of Federal Claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), or in a federal district court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). The foregoing statutes do not confer refund jurisdiction on the Tax Court. The Tax Court can determine an overpayment only in cases starting with a deficiency determination by the IRS, see § 6512, and, as noted above, petitioner has failed to establish that he has been issued a notice of deficiency.
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion to Dismiss is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that all other pending motions are moot.