Opinion
33865-21
06-23-2022
MARIO GERARD BERNADEL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
On October 27, 2021, the Court received from petitioner a letter, which was filed as the petition to commence this case in order to protect the taxpayer's interest to the extent possible. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court is attached to the petition. In a document titled "Emergency Hearing Requested for Equitable Action in Recoupment By Special Visitation Renumeration of Claim", filed March 18, 2022, petitioner indicates that he seeks review "from March 3, 2006 continuing to present."
On April 7, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the ground that no notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court was issued to petitioner for tax years 2006 through 2022. On April 26, 2022, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
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; 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 under Internal Revenue Code section 6320 or 6330 and the timely filing by the taxpayer of a petition within 30 days of that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 492, 498 (2000); I.R.C. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Other types of 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 under section 6015 (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. No pertinent claims involving I.R.C. sections 6015, 6404(h), 7436, 7623, or 7345, respectively, appear to be involved in this case.
While petitioner indicates he objects to respondent's motion to dismiss, in his objection petitioner does not directly address respondent's jurisdictional allegations. Suffice it to say that petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that he was issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court with respect to his 2006 through 2022 tax years.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted in that this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Order Regarding Filing Fee, filed March 18, 2022, is denied as moot.