Opinion
8428-23S
10-11-2023
ALTON JACKSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
KATHLEEN KERRIGAN, CHIEF JUDGE.
On August 21, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that (1) with respect to tax year 2017, the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code and (2) with respect to tax year 2020, no notice of deficiency had been sent to petitioner, nor had petitioner made any other determination with respect to 2020 that would confer jurisdiction on the Court. Although petitioner was given an opportunity to file an objection in response to this motion, petitioner did not do 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; Foster v. Commissioner, 445 F.2d 799 (10th Cir. 1971); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022).
The record in this case establishes that the Petition was not timely filed with respect to tax year 2017. Further, petitioner has not provided any notice issued with respect to tax year 2020 or demonstrated that a determination that would confer jurisdiction on this Court was made. Accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. However, although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may still pursue an administrative resolution of petitioner's 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.