Opinion
15001-23
05-13-2024
ALBERTO RAMOS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On September 14, 2023, the Court received and filed the Petition to commence this case. Therein, petitioner requested that the Court "reconsider the denial" of petitioner's apparent income tax refund claims for the taxable years 2014, 2015, and 2016 "and provide an appropriate explanation."
On November 8, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that no notice of deficiency, nor any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, had been issued to petitioner for the taxable years 2014, 2015, and 2016. By Order served November 13, 2023, the Court directed petitioner to file, on or before December 4, 2023, an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion. The Order warned petitioner that failure to comply could result in the granting of the Motion and dismissal of the case. Petitioner thereafter failed to file any such objection. In view of the foregoing, on January 19, 2024, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction granting respondent's Motion and dismissing this case on the stated grounds.
On May 9, 2024, the Court received a letter by petitioner stating that he "disagree[s] with [the Court's] findings" and requesting that the Court "re-open [his] case." On the same date, the Court filed the letter as petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Motion to Vacate. See Rule 162, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure (requiring any motion to vacate to be filed within 30 days after entry of decision).
Petitioner mailed his Motion for Leave to the Court in an envelope postmarked April 17, 2024, that is, before the Court's Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction became final. See I.R.C. §§ 7481, 7483. Consequently, we have jurisdiction to consider the Motion, notwithstanding its filing date. See Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109 (2006).
Although petitioner states that he disagrees with the Court's findings, the only disagreement stated in his Motion is that he paid the filing fee. However, the Court's Order of Dismissal was not based on a failure to pay the filing fee. Rather, this case was dismissed on the grounds stated in respondent's Motion; namely, that petitioner had failed to carry his burden to establish that he had been issued a notice of deficiency, or any other determination, that would permit him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for the taxable years 2014, 2015, and 2016. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Garland v. Commissioner, 786 Fed.Appx. 240 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (affirming order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where taxpayers failed to produce notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or any other determination). To date, petitioner has failed to produce any such notice or determination. Indeed, petitioner does not even claim in the Motion for Leave that he has been issued such a notice or determination. Furthermore, our own review of the record reveals no indication that respondent has acted-or failed to act-in any manner that could support the Court's jurisdiction in this case. Thus, even if we were to grant petitioner's Motion for Leave, there would still be no apparent basis in the record for the Courts' jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, in the exercise of our discretion and the interests of justice, see Estate of Egger v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1079, 1083 (1989), we will deny petitioner's Motion for Leave, see Cowan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-255.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's above-referenced Motion is recharacterized as petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Out of Time Motion to Vacate (Embodying Motion to Vacate). It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's just-referenced Motion is denied.