Opinion
14887-15
04-20-2023
PARVEZ N. MALIK & SHAHEEN MALIK, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On July 23, 2015, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, seeking to dismiss this case on the ground that no notice of deficiency was issued to petitioners for tax years 1998 and 1999 that would confer jurisdiction on this Court.
On June 8, 2015, petitioners filed the petition seeking review of a notice of deficiency issued to them for tax years 1998 and 1999. Petitioners did not attach a copy of a notice of deficiency for tax years 1998 or 1999 to their petition.
This 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 a case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the issuance by the Commissioner of a valid notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because, without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).
Similarly, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination concerning collection action under section 6320 or 6330, depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals under section 6320 or 6330. I.R.C. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000). A condition precedent to the issuance of a notice of determination is the requirement that a taxpayer have requested a hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals within the 30-day period specified in section 6320(a) or 6330(a), and calculated with reference to an underlying Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320 or Final Notice of Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing.
On September 1, 2015, petitioner filed a Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, in which petitioners do not dispute the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion. Instead, petitioners assert that respondent should have issued a notice of deficiency for tax years 1998 and 1999 before beginning collection.
On April 28, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing the parties to show cause, on or before May 19, 2022, why respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed July 23, 2015, should not be granted.
On March 6, 2023, respondent filed a Response to the Order to Show Cause, in which he states that he does not objection to the granting of his motion. Petitioners failed to file a response to the Court's Order to Show Cause.
Petitioners have not provided a copy of a notice of deficiency or notice of determination that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Because no notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court has been sent to petitioners, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause, served April 28, 2022, is hereby made absolute. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed July 23, 2015, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.