Opinion
26270-22
06-02-2023
WILLIAM SMITH VEAZEY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
The initial petition underlying the above-docketed proceeding was filed on November 28, 2022, and alleged dispute of a Notice (or Notices) of Deficiency and a Notice (or Notices) of Determination Under Section 7623 Concerning Whistleblower Action. A First Amendment to Petition followed on January 26, 2023. Taxable years 2006 through 2015 were referenced as the periods in contention. No notices of deficiency or determination issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were attached to the petition or amendment, nor were any other documents. Rather, petitioner's statements centered on a litany of complaints pertaining to having had his identity stolen and used by New York State officials to commit Medicaid fraud. Petitioner alleged to have notified authorities, but no investigation was undertaken, and he sought relief including elimination of all tax debt and an "award of approximately $3 million", consisting in part of "whistleblower compensation".
Subsequently, on May 3, 2023, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the grounds that no notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, or a notice of determination concerning whistleblower action under section 7623, I.R.C., had been sent to petitioner with respect to taxable years 2005 through 2016, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner's such tax years that would confer jurisdiction on the Court, as of the date the petition herein was filed.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In a case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the issuance by the Commissioner of a valid notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67(1983).
Similarly, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination concerning collection action under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C., depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C. Secs. 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 have requested a hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals in reference to an underlying Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 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 section 6330(f), I.R.C. (e.g., a Notice of Levy on Your State Tax Refund and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing).
In a whistleblower case under I.R.C. section 7623, "[a]ny determination regarding an award * * * may, within 30 days of such determination, be appealed to the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with respect to such matter)." See I.R.C. section 7623(b)(4). In Kasper v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 37, 45 (2011), the Court held that the 30-day period under section 7623(b)(4) begins to run on the date of mailing or personal delivery of the determination to the claimant at his last known address. An essential prerequisite to the issuance of a whistleblower determination is for the individual to have filed with the IRS Whistleblower Office a Form 211, Application for Award for Original Information, concerning petitioner's whistleblower claim.
Other types of IRS notice which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, include a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief From Joint and Several Liability, a Notice of Final Determination Not To Abate Interest, a Notice of Determination of Worker Classification, or Notice of Certification of Your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt to the State Department. No pertinent claims involving section 6015, 6404(h), 7436, or 7345, I.R.C., respectively, have been implicated here. Similarly absent is any suggestion that the perquisites have been met to support one of the statutorily described declaratory judgment actions that may be undertaken by the Court.
Petitioner was served with copy of respondent's motion and on May 30, 2023, filed a response in objection, with attachments. Therein, petitioner did not directly counter the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion, i.e., petitioner did not show that the IRS had sent a relevant notice of deficiency or determination or any other jurisdictional notice for 2006 through 2015. Instead, the objection reprised at some length petitioner's allegations of "elected official-sponsored Medicaid fraud using [his] identity". He also seemed to take the position that several attached communications involving an apparent installment agreement with the IRS for payment of certain taxes, as well as correspondence involving the State of New York Attorney General Office could somehow suffice in lieu of a one of the specific types of IRS notice referenced above. Conversely, petitioner did not allude to or attach any further notices from the IRS that could bear upon the jurisdictional query before the Court.
Thus, the record at this juncture suggests that petitioner may have sought the assistance of the Court after having become frustrated with administrative actions by the IRS and any attempts to work with the agency but that the petition here was not based upon or instigated by a specific IRS notice expressly providing petitioner with the right to contest a particular IRS determination in this Court. Suffice it to say that no IRS communication supplied or referenced by petitioner to date constitutes, or can substitute for, a notice of deficiency issued pursuant to 6212, I.R.C., a notice of determination issued pursuant to sections 6320, 6330, and/or 7623, I.R.C., or any other of the narrow class of specified determinations by the IRS that can open the door to the Tax Court for purposes of this case. To the contrary, petitioner's apparently expansive view of the Court's authority fails to comport with the limited nature of the jurisdiction set forth in the statutory parameters set forth above.
In conclusion then, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioner's situation and understands the challenges of the circumstances faced and the good faith efforts made, the Court on the present record lacks jurisdiction in this case to review any action (or inaction) by respondent in regard to petitioner's taxes. Congress has granted the Tax Court no authority to afford any remedy in the circumstances evidenced by this proceeding, regardless of the merits of petitioner's complaints.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.