Opinion
20438-22SL
03-06-2023
ZHI QIN LIU, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
A petition was filed to commence this case on September 19, 2022, indicating that petitioner sought to dispute a notice of determination concerning collection action. No notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court was attached to the petition. On February 10, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of determination was issued to petitioner. By Letter Dated February 5, 2023, petitioner objected to the granting of the motion, but no notice was attached to petitioner's Letter. Moreover, nothing in the transcript of account attached to petitioner's Letter indicates that the Court has jurisdiction in this case.
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). Accordingly, upon review of the record and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion to dismiss is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.