Opinion
7356-22S
12-07-2023
TAYLOR MADELEINE ALONGI, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On May 20, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that, as to a notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2018 tax year, the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On September 28, 2023, respondent filed a First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction asserting that, as to a notice of determination concerning collection action, respondent had not issued any such notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioner's 2018 tax year. Although the Court provided petitioner the opportunity to file an objection to respondent's Motion, as supplemented, petitioner has not done so.
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 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 the timely 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). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 n.4 (2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); see Sanders v. Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 161 T.C., slip op. at 7-8 (Nov. 2, 2023) (holding that the Court will continue treating the deficiency deadline as jurisdictional in cases appealable to jurisdictions outside the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit). Similarly, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination with regard to certain collection activity under I.R.C. §6320 or 6330 depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals. I.R.C. §§6320(c), 6330(d).
The record in this case establishes that, as to the notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2018 tax year, the Petition was not timely filed. We have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 167; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). Furthermore, petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that respondent issued any notice of determination concerning collection action for petitioner's 2018 tax year that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. However, although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may still pursue an administrative resolution of petitioner's 2018 tax liability directly with the IRS.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, as supplemented, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.