Opinion
6394-21S
03-08-2022
WILLIE B. BALDWIN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley, Chief Judge
Pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed June 16, 2021. Therein, respondent requests that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency has been issued to petitioner for the taxable years 2017 and 2018, nor has respondent made any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for such taxable years.
On August 13, 2021, petitioner filed an Objection to the Motion to Dismiss, and, on October 12, 2021, respondent filed a Response to petitioner's Objection.
For the reasons set forth below, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
On February 25, 2021, petitioner filed the Petition to commence this case. Therein, petitioner checked the boxes indicating that he was disputing the following IRS actions: (1) 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); and (2) a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 (or failure of IRS to make determination within 6 months after election or request for relief).
All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
No notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim or notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 was attached to the Petition. Instead, attached to the Petition were: (1) portions of (what appear to be) petitioner's Federal income tax returns for the 2017 and 2018 taxable years; (2) IRS Notices CP504 dated March 16, 2020, and November 16, 2020, issued with respect to an unpaid income tax liability for petitioner's 2015 taxable year; and (3) IRS Letters 5071C and 418C dated July 3, 2019, and December 16, 2020, respectively, requesting further information from petitioner regarding his Federal income tax for the 2018 taxable year.
Among other things, petitioner asserts in the Petition that he "[d]isagree[s] with the IRS disallowance of [his] claim for the earned income credit because the person that filed [his] taxes correctly calculated the credit on [his] 2018-17 return." Petitioner further asserts therein that he "[d]isagree[s] with the IRS because they had [his] return for a year and still haven't issued a payment to [him] or any taxes that may be old". Petitioner additionally asserts: "I have proof that the IRS have had my returns for more than 6 months."
Discussion
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. See I.R.C. § 7442; Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230, 235 (2016). Where this Court's jurisdiction is duly challenged, as here, our jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown by the party seeking to invoke that jurisdiction. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975). To meet this burden, the party "must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270.
In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, our jurisdiction depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. See I.R.C. §§ 6212, 6213, and 6214; Rule 13(a) and (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989).
In a case based on a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim, our jurisdiction depends, in part, on the issuance of a final determination by the IRS under section 6404 or the IRS's failure to issue a final determination within 180 days after a claim for abatement is filed. See I.R.C. § 6404(h).
Our jurisdiction to review a notice of determination concerning a request for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 depends, in part, on the issuance of a final determination by the IRS under that section or the failure by the IRS to issue such a determination within six months after a request for innocent spouse has been filed or made. See I.R.C. § 6015(e)(1)(A).
In his Motion to Dismiss, respondent asserts that he has conducted a diligent search of his records and has contacted IRS personnel in an attempt to determine whether a notice of deficiency has been issued to petitioner for the 2017 and 2018 taxable years. Respondent asserts that, based on the foregoing, he has determined that no such notice has been issued. Moreover, respondent further asserts that, based on the foregoing, no other determination has been made by respondent that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for the 2017 and 2018 taxable years.
In his Objection, petitioner does not challenge the jurisdictional allegations in respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Rather, petitioner's primary (if not sole) contention therein appears to be that the IRS has failed to timely process his return for the 2018 taxable year, arguing in part: "I do not feel that my case should be dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction because the IRS failed to do their job in a timely manner." However, petitioner's Objection does not provide any legal basis on which to conclude that this Court may exercise jurisdiction over his Federal income tax for the 2018 taxable year.
Although petitioner checked the boxes in the Petition indicating that he disputes a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim and a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 (i.e., innocent spouse relief), it appears to the Court that he did so only because those boxes feature language pertaining to the IRS's failure to take some relevant action within a specified period of time. The Petition makes no other reference to such notices, and we find no claim by petitioner in the record that he has in fact filed a claim for abatement of interest or innocent spouse relief for the taxable years at issue. Moreover, petitioner does not maintain any such assertions in his Objection. Accordingly, to the extent the Petition may have raised those contentions, we deem petitioner to have abandoned them.
As noted supra p. 2, petitioner attached two notices of intent to levy to the Petition (albeit for the 2015 taxable year). However, those notices cannot serve as a basis on which to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. See Mathews v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-85, 2021 WL 2850593, at *4 ("We cannot use the notice of intent to levy as a stand-in for the notice of determination necessary for our jurisdiction."). Moreover, the IRS letters attached to Petition sought information from petitioner and were not determinations of the sort that would permit him to invoke this Court's jurisdiction.
After having been apprised of the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's Motion to Dismiss and given an opportunity to respond, petitioner has not provided the Court with any notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court for the 2017 and 2018 taxable years. Consequently, petitioner has failed to "establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270. Accordingly, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. See Versteeg v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 339, 340-341 (1988) (granting the Commissioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction where no notice of deficiency had been issued for the taxable year at issue and the taxpayer instead attached to the petition a final notice of intent to levy).
Upon due consideration 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.