Opinion
3216-23
06-15-2023
SEAN W. HINTZE & ASHLEY C. HINTZE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On April 12, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that (1) as to petitioner Sean W. Hintze, the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code, and (2) as to petitioner Ashley C. Hintze, no notice of deficiency was issued, nor did respondent make any other determination, as to her 2017, 2019, and 2020 tax years sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. Although the Court provided petitioners the opportunity to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion, petitioners have 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 Rsch. 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).
The record in this case establishes that, as to the notices of deficiency issued to petitioner Sean W. Hintze on which this case is based, the petition was not timely filed. Furthermore, petitioners have not produced or otherwise demonstrated that any notice of deficiency was issued, or that respondent made any other determination, as to petitioner Ashley C. Hintze's 2017, 2019, and 2020 tax years that would permit her to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. However, although petitioner Sean W. Hintze cannot prosecute this case in this Court, he may still pursue an administrative resolution of his 2017, 2019, and 2020 tax liabilities directly with the IRS.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.