Opinion
18109-22
10-06-2022
RONNIE H. LYNCH, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On August 1, 2022, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case. Petitioner indicates therein that he believes notice(s) of deficiency were issued for his 2019, 2020, and 2021 tax years and that economic stimulus payments he was entitled to receive in the amounts of $1,200.00 and $600.00 were wrongly used by the IRS as payments toward petitioners' deficiencies. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court is attached to the petition.
On September 13, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the ground that no notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court was issued to petitioner for tax years 2019, 2020, and 2021. On October 3, 2022, petitioner filed an Objection 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 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). Similarly, in a case seeking review of certain IRS collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction generally depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) 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. 36, 38 (2005); 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, a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action, 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, 7623, or 7345, respectively, appear to be involved in this case.
In his objection to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner does not address respondent's jurisdictional allegations. Rather, petitioner states he now believes someone fraudulently obtained stimulus payments totaling $1,800.00 that were rightfully his and requests this Court's assistance in recovering those payments. However, I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all IRS- and tax-related matters. As discussed above, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. As 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 as to his 2019, 2020, and 2021 tax years, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
In view 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.