Opinion
15838-19
03-18-2022
Douglas James Alford Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Cary Douglas Pugh Judge
Background
On February 4, 2020, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the grounds that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by § 6213(a) or § 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). Petitioner filed his objection to respondent's motion on February 4, 2020, and supplemented his objection on March 15, 2020.
On March 18, 2020, respondent filed a response to petitioner's objection to motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and supplemented his response on March 29, 2021. In the later supplement respondent stated that upon review of the IRS' records, respondent determined that the notice of deficiency for tax years at issue in this case was not sent to petitioner's last known address as required by § 6212(b). Respondent conceded that a valid notice of deficiency was not issued to petitioner for 2012, 2013, and 2014, and that the ground for dismissal stated in respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was improper. However, respondent maintained that this case should still be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on a different ground--the absence of a valid notice of deficiency.
On January 5, 2021, petitioner filed a Motion to Restrain Assessment or Collection or to Order Refund of Amount Collected. Respondent filed a response to this motion on March 29, 2021, and stated that upon dismissal of this case, respondent will abate all income tax, penalties, and additions to tax improperly assessed against the petitioner for 2012, 2013, and 2014.
On April 28, 2021, petitioner also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
We will resolve all three motions below.
Discussion
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). Where this Court's jurisdiction in a case is properly challenged, the jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown by the party seeking to invoke that jurisdiction (here, petitioner). Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960).
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(a), Tax Court Rules of Practices and Procedure; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983).
Because respondent did not issue a valid notice of deficiency to petitioner for 2012, 2013, and 2014, the Court lacks jurisdiction, and the case must be dismissed. Petitioner's motion to restrain assessment or collection or to order refund of amount collected, and motion for summary judgment are therefore moot.
Upon due consideration, therefore, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed February 4, 2020, as supplemented March 29, 2021, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the notice of deficiency upon which the petition in this case was filed is invalid. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Restrain Assessment or Collection or to Order Refund of Amount Collected, filed January 5, 2021, is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed April 28, 2021, is denied as moot.