Opinion
7886-22
07-15-2022
WEN CHIANG, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On June 10, 2022, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency or other notice of determination was issued to petitioner for taxable years 2011, 2012, and 2013 that would permit him to invoke the Court's jurisdiction in this case. Among other things, in support of his motion to dismiss, based upon a diligent search of respondent's records, respondent states he has determined that no notice of deficiency or other notice of determination was issued to petitioner for 2011, 2012, and 2013 that would confer jurisdiction upon the Court. On June 11, 2022, petitioner filed his Opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss.
The petition in this case was filed on March 31, 2022. Petitioner seeks refunds with respect to his 2011, 2012, and 2013 income taxes. No notice of deficiency for 2011, 2012, and/or 2013 was attached to the petition. Neither was any notice of determination for 2011, 2012, and/or 2013 that would confer jurisdiction upon the Court in this case attached to that petition.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Congress. I.R.C. sec. 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). Where this Court's jurisdiction in a case is duly challenged, the jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown by the party seeking to invoke that jurisdiction. Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1980).
In a deficiency case, the jurisdiction of the Court depends on (1) the issuance by the Commissioner of a notice of deficiency, and (2) the filing of a petition within 90 days (or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States) after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). I.R.C. secs. 6213(a), 7502; Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983; Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982); Rule 13(a) and (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Under section 6512(b)(1), the Tax Court in a deficiency proceeding has jurisdiction to determine the amount of an overpayment of tax. However, our jurisdiction to determine whether there has been an overpayment is limited to the same taxable year or years for which the Commissioner has issued a notice of deficiency and with regard to which the taxpayer has timely filed a petition for redetermination of the deficiency. See I.R.C. sec. 6512(b)(1); Martin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-234 fn. 3.
In his Opposition petitioner essentially does not dispute the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion to dismiss. Rather, petitioner essentially asserts that this Court has jurisdiction here in this case to determine that he is entitled to refund of his asserted overpayments of income tax for 2011, 2012, and 2013. Contrary to petitioner's argument, however, I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters. As discussed above, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 529; Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. at 66.
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate and establish that the Court has jurisdiction in this case. Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. at 280; Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. at 280. The Court thus is obliged to grant respondent's motion to dismiss.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed June 10, 2022, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.