Opinion
13983-23
10-27-2023
ERIC ANTHONY GRIMES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
The petition underlying the above-docketed proceeding was filed on August 30, 2023. Taxable year 2022 was referenced as the period in contention. No notices of deficiency or determination issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were attached to the petition. Rather, attached was a copy of a single IRS communication, i.e., a Notice CP23 dated August 21, 2023, advising petitioner of changes to his 2022 return and a balance due, as well as a Form W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification. The statements in the petition centered on complaints of failure to receive a refund without adequate information or a hearing.
Subsequently, on October 20, 2023, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the ground that no notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, had been sent to petitioner with respect to taxable year 2022, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner's tax year 2022 that would confer jurisdiction on the Court, as of the date the petition herein was filed.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In a case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the issuance by the Commissioner of a valid notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).
Similarly, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination concerning collection action under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C., depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C. Secs. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), I.R.C.; Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (2000). A condition precedent to the issuance of a notice of determination is the requirement that a taxpayer have requested a hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals in reference to an underlying Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320, Final Notice of Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (or the equivalent Notice CP90, Intent to seize your assets and notice of your right to a hearing, depending on the version of the form used), or analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under section 6330(f), I.R.C. (e.g., a Notice of Levy on Your State Tax Refund and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing).
Jurisdiction under section 6015(e), I.R.C., is predicated in part on issuance of a determination by the IRS under that section or the failure by the IRS to issue such a determination within 6 months of a request for relief from joint and several liability on a joint return. Sec. 6015(e)(1)(A), I.R.C.
In a case based upon failure of the IRS to abate interest, jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on issuance of a determination by the IRS under that section or the failure by the IRS to issue such a determination within 180 days of the filing of a claim for interest abatement.
Jurisdiction under section 7436, I.R.C., is similarly predicated in part on existence of a determination by the IRS under that section regarding services performed for the person instigating the proceeding. More specifically, generally, four requirements must be satisfied before the Court has jurisdiction under section 7436(a), I.R.C. See American Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. 24, 32 (2015); see also SECC Corp. v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. 225 (2014). There must be: (1) An examination in connection with the audit "of any person"; (2) a determination by the Secretary that "one or more individuals performing services for such person are employees of such person for purposes of subtitle C, or such person is not entitled to the treatment under subsection (a) of section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 with respect to such an individual"; (3) an "actual controversy" involving the determination as part of an examination; and (4) the filing of an appropriate pleading in the Tax Court. See sec. 7436(a), I.R.C.; see also American Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. at 32.
Jurisdiction under section 7345(e), I.R.C., involving revocation or denial of a passport rests on the issuing to the taxpayer of a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent Federal tax debt to the State Department and the filing of a petition by the taxpayer.
Finally, jurisdiction under section 7623(b)(4), I.R.C., is premised on a determination regarding an award to a whistleblower based on information provided by such individual to the Secretary.
Petitioner was served with copy of respondent's motion and on October 27, 2023, filed an objection. Therein, petitioner did not directly counter the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion, i.e., petitioner did not show that the IRS had sent a relevant notice of deficiency or determination or any other jurisdictional notice for 2022. Instead, the submission consisted largely of a list of five statutory enactments that pertained generally to taxpayer rights or government authority. Conversely, petitioner did not allude to or attach any notices from the IRS that could bear upon the jurisdictional query before the Court.
Thus, the record at this juncture suggests that petitioner may have sought the assistance of the Court after having become frustrated with administrative actions by the IRS and any attempts to work with the agency but that the petition here was not based upon or instigated by a specific IRS notice expressly providing petitioner with the right to contest a particular IRS determination in this Court. Suffice it to say that no IRS communication supplied or referenced by petitioner to date constitutes, or can substitute for, a notice of deficiency issued pursuant to 6212, I.R.C., a notice of determination issued pursuant to sections 6320 and/or 6330, I.R.C., or any other of the narrow class of specified determinations by the IRS that can open the door to the Tax Court for purposes of this case. Moreover, there has been no suggestion or indication that petitioner at any relevant time submitted to the IRS a request for relief from joint and several liability or a claim for interest abatement. To the contrary, petitioner's apparently expansive view of the Court's authority fails to comport with the limited nature of the jurisdiction set forth in the statutory parameters set forth above.
In conclusion then, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioner's situation and understands the challenges of the circumstances faced and the good faith efforts made, the Court on the present record lacks jurisdiction in this case to review any action (or inaction) by respondent in regard to petitioner's taxes. Congress has granted the Tax Court no authority to afford any remedy in the circumstances evidenced by this proceeding, regardless of the merits of petitioner's complaints.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.