Opinion
33174-21
11-09-2022
ANDRES RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
Pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed February 17, 2022. Therein, respondent requests that this case be dismissed on the ground that no notice of deficiency, nor any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, has been issued to petitioner.
By Order served February 17, 2022, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion. On March 8, 2022, the Court received a document from petitioner which was filed on that same date as petitioner's Letter dated March 1, 2022. Under the circumstances, the Court will recharacterize that Letter as petitioner's Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
On October 20, 2021, the Court received and filed a letter by petitioner as an imperfect Petition to commence this case. Therein, petitioner seeks assistance with respect to certain "stimulus checks" that petitioner asserts are due to him under the "Cares Act," the "2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act," and the "American Rescue Plan Act."
On January 10, 2022, petitioner filed a First Amended Petition, checking the boxes on the form indicating that he is disputing a notice of determination concerning collection action and a notice of final determination not to abate interest for the taxable year 2021. However, no such notices were attached thereto. Instead, an IRS Notice CP13 dated August 30, 2021, concerning action with respect to a recovery rebate credit, was so attached. Elsewhere in the First Amended Petition, petitioner again seeks assistance with respect to certain "stimulus checks" that he asserts are due to him, citing I.R.C. sections 6428, 6428A, and 6428B.
On January 19, 2022, the Court received and filed a Letter by petitioner dated 10, 2022, wherein petitioner advises that he has "received two EIP payments" but still seeks assistance with respect to a payment that he asserts is due to him under the "American Rescue Plan Act."
No notice that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court was attached to the Petition, the First Amended Petition, or any of the Letters submitted by petitioner to the Court.
Discussion
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. See I.R.C. § 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Where this Court's jurisdiction is duly challenged, as here, 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). To meet this burden, the party "must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." Ibid.
As noted above, in response to respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, petitioner has filed a Letter which the Court will recharacterize as an Objection to respondent's Motion. However, review of that Objection only serves to confirm that with this case petitioner seeks a "stimulus refund," as discussed above, and that, as respondent asserts in his Motion to Dismiss, petitioner has not shown that respondent has made any determination with respect to petitioner that would permit him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. As respondent notes in his Motion to Dismiss, none of the Code sections cited by petitioner in his filings (I.R.C. sections 6428, 6428A, and 6248B) includes a provision that confers jurisdiction on this Court.
As the foregoing demonstrates, petitioner, after having been apprised of respondent's jurisdictional allegations, and given an opportunity to respond, has failed to establish that he has been issued any notice that is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Consequently, petitioner has failed to carry his burden to "establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction," ibid., and we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Letter dated March 1, 2022, is recharacterized as petitioner's Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.