Opinion
6733-22L
05-26-2022
JASON G. HANRAHAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
After receipt of a document from petitioner filed March 14, 2022, as an imperfect petition to commence the above-docketed case, the Court, by Order issued March 31, 2022, directed that payment of the Court's filing fee for this litigation be made. On May 9, 2022, petitioner submitted correspondence filed as a letter, which had been titled "Request for USTC Dismissal Order of IRS Levy Claims Due to Lack of Jurisdiction". Therein, petitioner stated, inter alia, the following:
Recently, the USTC sent 'Order' which actually only amounts to a sub silentio 'Request' for 'Petitioner' to submit to the Tax Court's jurisdiction by: (1) filing an Amended Petition and/or (2) sending a filing fee. It would be an 'Order' only if this 'Petitioner' were subject to the limited territorial jurisdiction the USTC and IRS are authorized to operate within, meaning the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.
The USTC 'request' had a sub silentio design in its intent to draw this 'Petitioner' into the USTC territorial jurisdiction for the express purpose to allow the USTC and by extension, the IRS, to impose the federal income tax statutes that were levied only upon the National Government per the Legislative Intent of the 16th Amendment, written by former POTUS William H. Taft on June 16, 1909. Therefore, the federal income tax is only applicable within the jurisdiction of the statutory 'United States', meaning the District of Columbia.
Thereafter, on May 16, 2022, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the ground that no notice of determination pursuant to section 6320 and/or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) had been sent to petitioner with respect to the taxable year 2012, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to such tax year that would confer jurisdiction on this Court, as of the date the petition herein was filed.
Accordingly, the premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's just-referenced Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.