Opinion
12113-23
10-26-2023
ERIC MORROW & ERIN MORROW, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
The initial petition underlying the above-docketed proceeding was filed on July 27, 2023, and First and Second Amended Petitions followed on August 25, 2023. Taxable years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 were referenced as the periods in contention. No notices of deficiency or determination issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were attached to the petitions, nor was any other government communication or document. The submissions seemed to center on inchoate complaints as to some type of business or banking interests.
Subsequently, on September 29, 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 years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioners' tax years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 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).
Jurisdiction under section 6015(e), I.R.C., is predicated in part on issuance of a determination by the IRS under that section or the failure by the IRS to issue such a determination within 6 months of a request for relief from joint and several liability on a joint return. Sec. 6015(e)(1)(A), I.R.C.
In a case based upon failure of the IRS to abate interest, jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on issuance of a determination by the IRS under that section or the failure by the IRS to issue such a determination within 180 days of the filing of a claim for interest abatement.
Jurisdiction under section 7436, I.R.C., is similarly predicated in part on existence of a determination by the IRS under that section regarding services performed for the person instigating the proceeding. More specifically, generally, four requirements must be satisfied before the Court has jurisdiction under section 7436(a), I.R.C. See American Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. 24, 32 (2015); see also SECC Corp. v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. 225 (2014). There must be: (1) An examination in connection with the audit "of any person"; (2) a determination by the Secretary that "one or more individuals performing services for such person are employees of such person for purposes of subtitle C, or such person is not entitled to the treatment under subsection (a) of section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 with respect to such an individual"; (3) an "actual controversy" involving the determination as part of an examination; and (4) the filing of an appropriate pleading in the Tax Court. See sec. 7436(a), I.R.C.; see also American Airlines, Inc. v. Commissioner, 144 T.C. at 32.
Jurisdiction under section 7345(e), I.R.C., involving revocation or denial of a passport rests on the issuing to the taxpayer of a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent Federal tax debt to the State Department and the filing of a petition by the taxpayer.
Finally, jurisdiction under section 7623(b)(4), I.R.C., is premised on a determination regarding an award to a whistleblower based on information provided by such individual to the Secretary.
Petitioners were served with copy of respondent's motion and supplement and on October 23, 2022, 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 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Rather, the submission opened with the following, on a page titled "Objection": "Petitioner Eric Morrow; Erin Morrow files dismissal of jurisdiction in above reference case no; Petitioner also submits Federal Code violation; Federal Investigative Subpoena; and or Federal Protective Order. Denied and or Granted Immediate Facility Transfer or other Appropriate Action by this Court." Attached was a page that, to the extent intelligible, appeared to consist of a series of unrelated phrases perhaps intended as some type of poetry or verse.
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 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. Moreover, there has been no suggestion or indication that petitioners at any relevant time submitted to the IRS a request for relief from joint and several liability or a claim for interest abatement. 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.
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.