Opinion
10273-23
05-22-2024
FLORDELIZA RUSSO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Joseph W. Nega Judge
This deficiency case is currently calendared for trial at the Court's June 10, 2024, San Francisco, California, trial session. On May 13, 2024, respondent filed an unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (respondent's motion).
On April 4, 2022, respondent issued a Notice CP11 to petitioner proposing adjustments to her 2021 tax return consisting of additional income tax in the amount of $1,787.16. On June 27, 2022, before the issuance of the notice of deficiency, petitioner fully paid the remainder of the additional tax and interest of $1,787.16 proposed in the Notice CP11. Because the proposed additional tax for taxable year 2021 in the CP11 was fully paid and assessed prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency on April 21, 2023, there was no deficiency as of the date the notice of deficiency was issued.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in income tax depends on: (1) the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency; and (2) the timely filing of a petition with the Court by the taxpayer. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989). A notice of deficiency is not valid when full payment of the tax at issue has been made prior to the notice being issued to the taxpayer. See Walsh v. Commissioner, 21 T.C. 1063, 1067 (1954); Anderson v. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 841, 843 (1948); see also Peacock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-63, at *7. In such an instance, this Court does not have a deficiency to redetermine and thus lacks jurisdiction over the case. By establishing that full payment was made prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency, respondent has demonstrated that we lack jurisdiction. Accordingly, we will grant respondent's motion.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed May 13, 2024, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.