Opinion
13621-23
12-15-2023
JEFFREY J. STEFFEN & CARA STEFFEN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On August 25, 2023, petitioners electronically filed the Petition in the above-docketed matter. In the Petition, petitioners seek review of purported notices of determination concerning collection action for taxable years 2018 and 2019 and allege that their liabilities for those years have been satisfied. Petitioners did not attach to their Petition a notice of determination concerning collection action or any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.
On October 2, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Motion to Dismiss) on the grounds that no notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 6320 or § 6330 was sent to petitioners for taxable year 2018 or 2019, nor has respondent made any other determinations with respect to those taxable years that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Petitioners filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on October 23, 2023.
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. We may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In addition, 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 case seeking review of certain Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination (after petitioner has properly requested and received a collection due process hearing) under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330 and the filing by the taxpayer of a petition concerning that IRS determination. See I.R.C. §§ 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 38 (2005).
In their Objection, petitioners summarily assert that respondent's Motion to Dismiss lacks merit. However, petitioners did not attach to their Objection a notice of determination concerning collection action or any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. As stated above, petitioners bear the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over this case. Because petitioners have not produced a notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.