Opinion
23396-22
07-14-2023
JAMES B. ADAMS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On October 19, 2022, the Court received from petitioner a letter, which was filed as the petition to commence this case in order to protect the taxpayer's interests to the extent possible. In that letter, petitioner states "I would like to ask for my refund and my stimulus checks". Petitioner attached to his letter several IRS letters he received concerning his 2019, 2020, and 2021 tax years. However, no notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court is attached to petitioner's letter.
On December 14, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the grounds that no notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner, nor had respondent made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court as to petitioner's 2019, 2020, and 2021 tax years. On January 9 and February 1, 2023, petitioner filed two letters in opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss.
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 deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). Similarly, in a case seeking review of certain 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 Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 and the filing by the taxpayer of a petition concerning that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 38 (2005); I.R.C. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Other IRS notices which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, are a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability (or failure of IRS to make determination within 6 months after election or request for relief), a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim (or failure of IRS to make final determination within 180 days after claim for abatement), a notice of determination of worker classification, a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action, and a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent Federal tax debt to the Department of State.
In his letter filed February 1, 2023, petitioner asserts that this Court has jurisdiction "because of the ethics" involved in this case. However, I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related disputes. As discussed above, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. As may be relevant here, the Tax Court is not the proper court in which to file a lawsuit challenging the IRS's denial of a claim for refund. A taxpayer may seek a judicial remedy for wrongful denial of claims for refund-i.e., a refund suit in compliance with Internal Revenue Code sections 6532(a)(1) and 7422(a)-only in the United States Court of Federal Claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1491(a)(1), or in Federal district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346(a)(1). Those statutes do not confer refund jurisdiction on the Tax Court. Accordingly, this Court cannot and does not decide whether petitioner is entitled to a refund for the tax years at issue in this case.
While we are sympathetic to petitioner's circumstances, petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that he was issued any notice of deficiency, or that respondent made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to his 2019, 2020, and 2021 tax years. The Court, therefore, is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.