Opinion
11705-20S
08-17-2021
Douglas C. Loreman & Kelly J. Thomas-Loreman Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER
Maurice B. Foley, Chief Judge
On September 15, 2020, petitioners filed the petition to commence this case, indicating therein that with respect to tax year 2017 they seek review of a notice of deficiency and a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim. Petitioners did not attach to their petition any copies of a notice of deficiency or notice of determination.
On November 20, 2020, respondent filed an answer to the petition. In that answer, respondent asserts that, after making a diligent search, his records show that petitioners were issued a notice of deficiency for tax year 2017, but no other determination was made by respondent with respect to petitioners' 2017 tax year. Respondent attached to the answer a copy of the notice of deficiency for tax year 2017 issued to petitioners.
The Tax 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 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 relevant part, Rule 149(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, states: "Failure to produce evidence, in support of an issue of fact as to which a party has the burden of proof and which has not been conceded by such party's adversary, may be ground for dismissal or for determination of the affected issue against that party."
On July 16, 2021, the parties submitted a proposed stipulated decision in which only the deficiency for petitioners' 2017 tax year is referenced. Petitioners have not produced or otherwise demonstrated that they were issued any notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim for their 2017 tax year. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 149(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, we will dismiss for lack of jurisdiction so much of this case relating to a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, so much of this case relating to a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim for petitioners' 2017 tax year is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.