Opinion
15778-23L
01-19-2024
GARY M. RAHMAN & CALLIE J. RAHMAN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike as to Taxable Year 2018, filed December 1, 2023. Therein respondent moves that this case be dismissed, insofar as it concerns petitioners' 2018 tax year, on the grounds that no notice of determination concerning collection action was sent to petitioners for tax year 2018, nor has respondent made any other determination with respect to tax year 2018 that would confer jurisdiction on the Court. Respondent further moves to strike all references to tax year 2018 in the Petition. On December 11, 2023, respondent filed a supplement to the motion with additional exhibits. Petitioners oppose the granting of the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion, as supplemented, and dismiss so much of this case as concerns tax year 2018 for lack of jurisdiction.
In the Petition filed to commence this case on October 7, 2023, petitioners challenged a notice of determination concerning collection action for tax years 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019, and 2020. In addition, petitioners requested that respondent accept their 2018 tax return as filed.
The Tax Court may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 7442; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 135 (2022). I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters. Where, as here, this Court's jurisdiction is duly challenged, our jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown by the party seeking to invoke that jurisdiction. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff 'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975). To meet this burden, the party "must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270.
In a case seeking review of a determination concerning collection action, this Court's jurisdiction depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals). See I.R.C. §§ 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 has requested a hearing before Appeals in reference to an underlying Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under I.R.C. 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 I.R.C. section 6330(f). (e.g., a Notice of Levy on Your State Tax Refund and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing).
Petitioners assert that because their failure to file a tax return for 2018 was one of the factors considered by Appeals in determining to deny the relief petitioners requested at their collection due process hearing, that tax year should be "included in this discussion concerning appropriate relief" and therefore is now before the Court. Petitioners are incorrect. The record reflects that petitioners were issued a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under I.R.C. 6320 with respect to tax years 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019, and 2020. Petitioners requested, and were granted, a collection due process hearing with respect to those tax years, and subsequent to the hearing, petitioners were issued a notice of determination concerning collection action for those tax years. Petitioners have not shown that they were issued a notice of determination concerning collection action with respect to tax year 2018 or that respondent made any other determination with respect to that year sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.
Because petitioners have failed to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction, we must grant respondent's Motion, as supplemented, and dismiss so much of this case as concerns tax year 2018 for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike as to Taxable Year 2018, as supplemented, is granted, and so much of this case as concerns tax year 2018 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and deemed stricken from the Court's record in this case.
Petitioners are advised that so much of this case relating to their 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019, and 2020 tax years remains pending before the Court.