Opinion
8739-22S
03-23-2023
ASHLYN MICHELLE FREEMAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
On April 11, 2022, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case, indicating that she seeks review of a notice of deficiency, notice of determination concerning collection action, and 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) with respect to petitioner's 2018 tax year.
On May 3, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. On January 9, 2023, respondent filed a First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. In his motion, as supplemented, respondent asserts that (1) as to a notice of deficiency issued to petitioner for her 2018 tax year, the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code, and (2) as to a notice of determination concerning collection action and a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim, no such notices were issued to petitioner, nor has respondent failed to make any determination within a statutorily prescribed time period, that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court with respect to her 2018 tax year. Although the Court provided petitioner the opportunity to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion, petitioner has not done so.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 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). In a deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark 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 petitioner has properly requested and received 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.
The record in this case establishes that, as to the notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2018 tax year, the petition was not timely filed. Furthermore, as to her 2018 tax year, petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that she was issued any notice of determination, or that respondent failed to make any determination within a statutorily prescribed time period, that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. However, although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may continue to pursue an administrative resolution of petitioner's 2018 tax liability directly with the IRS.
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.