Opinion
6553-23
07-25-2023
RAMESH MEENAKSHISUNDARAM & MEENAKSHI MUTHURAMAN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
The petition underlying the above-docketed proceeding was filed on May 1, 2023. Taxable year 2018 was referenced as the period in contention. No notices of deficiency or determination issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were attached to the submission. Rather, attached was a copy of a single IRS communication, i.e., a Letter 2681 dated April 17, 2023, sent to petitioners with respect to continued disallowance of a claim for refund for the 2018 tax year after consideration of a protest, evidence, and argument from petitioners. The statements in the petition centered on petitioners' assertions of entitlement to various tax credits related to their daughter.
On July 6, 2023, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the ground that no notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, had been sent to petitioners with respect to taxable year 2018, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioners' 2018 tax year that would confer jurisdiction on the Court, as of the date the petition herein was filed.
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, I.R.C., 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. Secs. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), I.R.C.; Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (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 in reference to an underlying Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320, Final Notice of Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (or the equivalent Notice CP90, Intent to seize your assets and notice of your right to a hearing, depending on the version of the form used), or analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under section 6330(f), I.R.C. (e.g., a Notice of Levy on Your State Tax Refund and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing).
Other types of IRS notice which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, include a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief From Joint and Several Liability, a Notice of Final Determination Not To Abate Interest, a Notice of Determination of Worker Classification, Notice of Certification of Your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt to the State Department, or a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Whistleblower Action. No pertinent claims involving section 6015, 6404(h), 7436, 7345, or 7623, I.R.C., respectively, have been implicated here. Similarly absent is any suggestion that the perquisites have been met to support one of the statutorily described declaratory judgment actions that may be undertaken by the Court.
Petitioners were served with copy of respondent's motion and on July 25, 2023, filed an objection. Therein, petitioners did not directly counter the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion, i.e., petitioners did not show that the IRS had sent a relevant notice of deficiency or determination or any other jurisdictional notice for 2018. Instead, petitioners sought to equate the Letter 2681 with a notice of determination sufficient to support jurisdiction before this Court, stating: "The respondent's counsel does not appear to have noticed that the letter 2681 is from the IRS' Independent Office of Appeals and is the Notice of Determination that this office provides to the tax payer after they consider a protest brought to them by the tax payer. The petitioners believe that this Notice of Determination issued by the IRS' Independent Office of Appeals is sufficient for the U.S. Tax Court to claim jurisdiction over this case." Petitioners also advocated for a broad view of the Court's authority over tax disputes, reiterating the substance of their case regarding entitlement to credits and reprising their extensive efforts to resolve the 2018 tax matters administratively with the IRS through all reasonable channels. They summarized: "This petition represents a valid case of dispute between the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service. The petitioners further assert that this case was filed only after exhausting all reasonable efforts to obtain timely relief through normal established dispute resolution channels of the Internal Revenue Service. The U.S. Tax Court has the jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction based on careful consideration of the case's merits." Conversely, petitioners did not allude to or attach any further notices from the IRS that could bear upon the jurisdictional query before the Court.
Thus, the record at this juncture suggests that petitioners may have sought the assistance of the Court after having become frustrated with administrative actions by the IRS and any attempts to work with the agency but that the petition here was not based upon or instigated by a specific IRS notice expressly providing petitioners with the right to contest a particular IRS determination in this Court. Suffice it to say that no IRS communication supplied or referenced by petitioners to date, including the Letter 2681, constitutes, or can substitute for, a notice of deficiency issued pursuant to 6212, I.R.C., a notice of determination issued pursuant to sections 6320 and/or 6330, I.R.C., or any other of the narrow class of specified determinations by the IRS that can open the door to the Tax Court for purposes of this case. To the contrary, petitioners' apparently expansive view of the Court's authority fails to comport with the limited nature of the jurisdiction set forth in the statutory parameters set forth above.
Additionally, the Court would point out that the Letter 2681 regarding disallowance of the claim for abatement and/or refund of taxes explained how and where litigation to dispute the conclusions reached may be commenced through the Federal court system. To wit, the April 17, 2023, letter stated:
If you want to bring suit or proceeding for the recovery of any tax, penalties, or other moneys, you can file suit with the United States District Court having jurisdiction or the United States Court of Federal Claims. Generally, you must do this within two years from the date on the letter denying your claim, which the Memphis Campus mailed to you on 4/29/2022. However, if you signed a Form 2297, Waiver of Statutory Notification of Claim Disallowance, the two-year period began on the date you filed that waiver.
The United States Tax Court is neither a United States District Court nor the United States Court of Federal Claims. See also McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 (1970). The Tax Court also has not been granted the ability to "transfer" cases or venue to other Federal Courts, and taxpayers need to file a separate petition or complaint directly with those courts.
In conclusion then, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioners' situation and understands the challenges of the circumstances faced and the good faith efforts made, the Court on the present record lacks jurisdiction in this case to review any action (or inaction) by respondent in regard to petitioners' taxes. Congress has granted the Tax Court no authority to afford any remedy in the circumstances evidenced by this proceeding, regardless of the merits of petitioners' complaints.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.