Opinion
25205-22S
03-28-2023
DANIEL B. RAEMER & WALLIS W. RAEMER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On December 3, 2022, petitioners filed a petition to commence this case, indicating that they seek review of a notice of deficiency issued for their 2018 tax year. On January 9, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to a Notice of Deficiency for Tax Year 2018 on the grounds that, as to a notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2018 tax yar, the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. Respondent further asserted that the notice that is properly at issue in this case is a notice of determination concerning collection action, dated November 8, 2022, issued to petitioners for their 2018 tax year. A copy of that notice of determination is attached to respondent's motion. Although the Court provided petitioners the opportunity to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion, petitioners have not done so.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 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 the timely filing of a petition within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988).
The record in this case establishes that, as to the notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2018 tax year, the petition was not timely filed and, accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction so much of this case relating to that notice of deficiency. Petitioners are advised, however, that so much of this case relating to the notice of determination issued to them for their 2018 tax year remains pending before the Court.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced motion is granted and so much of this case relating to a notice of deficiency for petitioners' 2018 tax yar is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and deemed stricken from the Court's record. It is further
ORDERED that the caption of this case is amended by adding the letter "L" to the docket number. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall add the letter "L" to the docket sheet and other records of her office and process this case to trial or other disposition according to the Lien and Levy Action Procedures provided by Rules 330 et seq., Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.