Opinion
6361-21
10-03-2023
GEORGE P. ESHOO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Emin Toro, Judge.
On March 24, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 17) along with a Declaration of Emily Harris (Doc. 18). Respondent moves the Court to dismiss this case upon the ground that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by I.R.C. § 6213(a) or § 7502.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
By Order served March 25, 2022, respondent's Motion was set for hearing during the Court's April 4, 2022, San Francisco, California, trial session. By the same Order, petitioner was directed to show cause on or before May 6, 2022, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds the Petition was not timely filed.
On April 4, 2022, this case was called and recalled from the calendar for the Court's April 4, 2022, San Francisco, California, trial session. Petitioner and counsel for respondent appeared and were heard.
A review of the parties' submissions in the case showed that the record did not contain a complete copy of the notice of deficiency on which the case is based. Petitioner did not attach a copy of any notice of deficiency and asserted he never received such a notice. Respondent's Motion noted that respondent believed a notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner for the 2012 tax year at his last known address on July 10, 2015, but that respondent had not made any other determination with respect to petitioner's 2012 tax year that would confer jurisdiction on this Court.
On May 4, 2022, petitioner filed a Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. 25). On May 26, 2022, respondent filed a Reply to Petitioner's Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. 29). On June 10, 2022, petitioner filed a Response to Respondent's Reply (Doc. 30).
On December 12, 2022, the Court held a conference call with the parties to discuss, among other things, the current status of the case, petitioner's response to the Order to Show Cause, and the parties' views on the implications of the Court's decisions in Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729 (1989), aff'd, 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991), Coleman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 82 (1990), and their progeny for the Court's jurisdiction in this case. As discussed during the conference call and agreed to by the parties, the Court held respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in abeyance pending an evidentiary hearing concerning the Court's jurisdiction. Consistent with the parties' request that the hearing be conducted in person by this division of the Court, the Court anticipated holding the hearing when the undersigned judge next had a trial session in San Francisco.
By Order served May 18, 2023, this case was calendared for an evidentiary hearing during the Court's October 10, 2023, San Francisco, California, trial session.
On September 26, 2023, the Court held a conference call with the parties to discuss, among other things, the current status of the case. During the call, respondent advised the Court that respondent was unable to meet his burden of production in proving the existence of a valid notice of deficiency for the 2012 tax year.
On September 29, 2023, respondent filed a Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 41) providing the same update and asking that "this Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction be granted based upon an invalid [statutory notice of deficiency]."
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). As relevant here, in a case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of this Court depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency. Rule 13(a), (c); see also Hallmark Research Collective V. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 (2022). For a notice of deficiency to be valid, it must be mailed to a petitioner's last known address by certified or registered mail. See § 6212(a); see also Yusko v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 806, 807 (1987).
The Commissioner has the burden of establishing both the existence of a notice of deficiency as well as the date of mailing. See Pietanza, 92 T.C. at 736. In this case, the Commissioner is unable to prove that a notice was sent to Mr. Eshoo for 2012. As a result, we lack jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in this case.
Upon due consideration, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause served April 7, 2022, is discharged. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed March 24, 2022, as supplemented on September 29, 2023, is granted in that this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no valid notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner for tax year 2012.