Opinion
916-22W
04-08-2022
MARK C. JACKSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley, Chief Judge
On January 31, 2022, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case, seeking review with respect to a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court is attached to the petition.
Since the filing of the petition, petitioner has filed numerous motions: (1) motion to permit levy, filed February 2, 2022; (2) motion to compel discovery, filed February 4, 2022; (3) motion for judgment on the pleadings, filed February 25, 2022; (4) motion to consolidate docket numbers 916-022W, 4968-05L, filed March 25, 2022; and (5) motion to set for a date and time certain, filed March 29, 2022.
Respondent filed on March 18, 2022, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action was issued to petitioner, nor has respondent made any other determination, that is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. On March 28, 2022, in opposition to respondent's motion, petitioner filed a reply to motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and a memorandum in support of reply to motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. We may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In addition, 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 whistleblower case, in general, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a notice of determination concerning whistleblower action and the filing of a petition within 30 days of the date such determination is issued. See Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 7623(b)(4). In a deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). In a case seeking review of certain IRS collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code section 6320 or 6330 and the timely filing by the taxpayer of a petition within 30 days of that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 492, 498 (2000); 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, and a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent Federal tax debt to the Department of State. No pertinent claims involving I.R.C. sections 6015, 6404(h), 7436, or 7345, respectively, appear to be involved in this case.
In his reply to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner does not address respondent's jurisdictional allegations. Rather, petitioner focuses on detailing his anger and frustration as a result of his dealings with various Federal government departments and agencies. Petitioner asserts that "I have exhausted all my administrative remedies; therefore, jurisdiction belongs to the court" and requests that his civil rights be restored. However, because petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that he was issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
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. It is further
ORDERED that all other pending motions are denied as moot.