From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blumenthal v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Aug 12, 2022
No. 18453-21S (U.S.T.C. Aug. 12, 2022)

Opinion

18453-21S

08-12-2022

EMILY K. BLUMENTHAL & ASAF KLIBANSKY, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge

The petition underlying the above-docketed proceeding was filed on August 12, 2021, and taxable year 2017 was referenced as the period in contention. A First Amendment to Petion followed on February 15, 2022. No notices of deficiency or determination issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were attached to the petition or amendment. Rather, the amendment consisted of a copy of a single IRS communication, i.e., a Letter 2644C dated November 9, 2021, advising petitioners that additional time was needed to respond to their inquiry regarding the 2017 year. Statements in the petition suggested that the inquiry likely centered on a request for abatement of a "penalty".

Subsequently, on February 16, 2022, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the grounds that no notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, or notice of determination concerning collection action pursuant to section 6320 and/or 6330, I.R.C., had been sent to petitioners with respect to taxable year 2017, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioners' tax year 2017 that would confer jurisdiction on the Court, as of the date the petition herein was filed.

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). 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(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).

Similarly, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination 1 concerning collection action under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C., depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C. Secs. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), I.R.C.; Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (2000). A condition precedent to the issuance of a notice of determination is the requirement that a taxpayer have requested a hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals in reference to an underlying Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320, Final Notice of Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (or the equivalent Notice CP90, Intent to seize your assets and notice of your right to a hearing, depending on the version of the form used), or analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under section 6330(f), I.R.C. (e.g., a Notice of Levy on Your State Tax Refund and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing).

In a case based upon failure of the IRS to abate interest, jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Sec. 6404(h), I.R.C.; Rule 280(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Again, if the conditions of section 7502, I.R.C., are satisfied, a petition which is timely mailed may be treated as having been timely filed. Jurisdiction under section 6404(h), I.R.C., also rests in part on issuance of a determination by the IRS under that section or the failure by the IRS to issue such a determination within 180 days of the filing of a claim for interest abatement. More specifically, section 6404(h), I.R.C., provides:

(1) In general.--The Tax Court shall have jurisdiction over any action brought by a taxpayer who meets the requirements referred to in section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) to determine whether the Secretary's failure to abate interest under this section was an abuse of discretion, and may order an abatement if such action is brought--
(A)at any time after the earlier of--
(i) the date of the mailing of the Secretary's final determination not to abate such interest, or
(ii) the date which is 180 days after the date of the filing with the Secretary (in such form as the Secretary may prescribe) of a claim for abatement under this section, and
(B) not later than the date with is 180 days after the date described in subparagraph (A)(i).

Other types of IRS notice which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax 2 Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, include a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief From Joint and Several Liability, a Notice of Determination of Worker Classification, Notice of Certification of Your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt to the State Department, or a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Whistleblower Action. No pertinent claims involving section 6015, 7436, 7345, or 7623, I.R.C., respectively, have been implicated here. Similarly absent is any suggestion that the perquisites have been met to support one of the statutorily described declaratory judgment actions that may be undertaken by the Court.

Petitioners were served with copy of respondent's motion and on February 17, 2022, filed an objection and five amendments thereto. In their submissions, petitioners did not directly deny the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion, i.e., petitioners did not claim or show that the IRS had sent a relevant notice of deficiency or determination or any other jurisdictional notice for 2017. Instead, petitioners reiterated the saga, already recounted at length in the earlier petition, of their efforts to have a penalty or addition to tax abated. They also highlighted their diligence in promptly addressing the taxes once brought to their attention. The amendments to the objection comprised copies of an IRS Letter 853C dated October 29, 2021, advising petitioners that the request to remove penalty charges to their 2017 account could not be granted, as well as a document dated January 25, 2022, from the New York State Department of Finance. Conversely, petitioners did not allude to or attach any further notices from the IRS that could bear upon the jurisdictional query before the Court.

Thus, the record at this juncture suggests that petitioners may have sought the assistance of the Court after having become frustrated with administrative actions by the IRS and any attempts to work with the agency but that the petition here was not based upon or instigated by a specific IRS notice expressly providing petitioners with the right to contest a particular IRS determination in this Court. Suffice it to say that no IRS communication supplied or referenced by petitioners to date constitutes, or can substitute for, a notice of deficiency issued pursuant to 6212, I.R.C., a notice of determination issued pursuant to sections 6320 and/or 6330, I.R.C., or any other of the narrow class of specified determinations by the IRS that can open the door to the Tax Court for purposes of this case. To the contrary, petitioners' apparently expansive view of the Court's authority fails to comport with the limited nature of the jurisdiction set forth in the statutory parameters set forth above. While abatement of interest can in certain scenarios lead to a Tax Court proceeding, penalty abatement of the type in contention here is a disparate concept.

In conclusion then, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioners' situation and understands the challenges of the circumstances faced and the good faith efforts made, the Court on the present record lacks jurisdiction in this case to review any action (or inaction) by respondent in regard to petitioners' taxes. Congress has granted the Tax Court no authority to afford any remedy in the circumstances evidenced by this proceeding, regardless of the merits of petitioners' complaints.

The premises considered, it is 3

ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 4


Summaries of

Blumenthal v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Aug 12, 2022
No. 18453-21S (U.S.T.C. Aug. 12, 2022)
Case details for

Blumenthal v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:EMILY K. BLUMENTHAL & ASAF KLIBANSKY, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF…

Court:United States Tax Court

Date published: Aug 12, 2022

Citations

No. 18453-21S (U.S.T.C. Aug. 12, 2022)