Opinion
33354-21
08-25-2022
RAYMOND VELASQUEZ, 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 May 4, 2022. Therein, respondent requests that this case be dismissed on the ground that no notice of deficiency has been issued to petitioner for the taxable year 2021, nor has respondent made any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for such year.
By Order served July 6, 2022, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion. On August 1, 2022, petitioner filed an 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
In the First Amended Petition, filed February 28, 2022, petitioner seeks review of a notice of deficiency purportedly issued to him for the taxable year 2021. However, no notice of deficiency, nor any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, is attached to the First Amended Petition. Instead, attached thereto is an apparent letter by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., dated June 1, 2021, and addressed to petitioner, advising him that, as part of the American Rescue Plan, a direct payment of $1,400 was issued to him by paper check/debit card. In the First Amended Petition, petitioner asserts that, for reasons beyond his control, "the prison mailroom returned [his] EIP-3 payment[, and] the IRS * * * failed to give [him] a reason why they couldn't reissue [that] payment."
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, petitioner has filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. However, that Objection does not address the jurisdictional allegations in respondent's Motion, and no notice of deficiency, nor any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, is attached thereto. Rather, among other things, the Objection again references the American Rescue Plan and asserts that petitioner is "owed [his] third EIP of 1800.00 which [the] IRS refuse[s] to pay [him]."
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 respondent's above-referenced Motion is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.