Opinion
5251-23S
11-30-2023
MARC E. BRANDES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed May 26, 2023. In the Motion, respondent maintains that no notice of deficiency, nor any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, has been issued to petitioner for the taxable year 2016. Petitioner opposes the granting of the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
In the Petition filed to commence this case on April 10, 2023, petitioner indicates that he seeks review of a notice of deficiency purportedly issued to him for the taxable year 2016. However, no such notice is attached to the Petition. Rather, attached thereto is a narrative document regarding an apparent dispute between petitioner and the Internal Revenue Service over petitioner's income tax liability for 2016 and, more specifically, whether that liability has been fully paid. The narrative concludes with a request by petitioner "that this Court enter an order finding that Petitioner has paid all sums owed for 2016, owes nothing further to the IRS for 2016, and award costs and fees to Petitioner, as well as all other relief the court deems just and proper."
The Tax Court may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See § 7442; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 135 (2022). Where, as here, this Court's jurisdiction is duly challenged, 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.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, as here, our jurisdiction depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency. See §§ 6212 and 6213; Rule 13(a); Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 130, n.4 (collecting cases). To the extent petitioner seeks to invoke our deficiency jurisdiction for the taxable year 2016, there is no indication in the record that he has been issued a notice of deficiency for that year. See id. at 140 ("It is elemental that the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction where the Commissioner has not determined a deficiency and a statutory notice of deficiency has not been sent to the taxpayer-petitioner.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Nor is there any indication in the record that respondent has otherwise acted or failed to act in any manner that would allow the Court to acquire jurisdiction in this case.
In response to respondent's Motion to Dismiss, petitioner has produced (1) a copy of an IRS Form 668(Z), Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien, pertaining to the taxable year 2018; (2) a screen shot of petitioner's account balance for the taxable year 2016, as displayed on the IRS website; and (3) a partial copy of an IRS Notice CP21A dated July 10, 2023, informing petitioner of changes to his Form 1040 for 2016 based on information provided. None of these documents is a notice of deficiency or other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.
Because petitioner, after having had notice of respondent's jurisdictional allegations and an opportunity to respond, has failed to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction in this case, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. That being so, it is
While we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction, we note that, to the extent petitioner has attempted to commence formal discovery, those efforts were procedurally improper given the posture of the case. See Rules 70(a)(2), 38.
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Dismiss, filed November 29, 2023, is moot. It is further
ORDERED that, to the extent there is a request for relief contained in or related to the document filed and designated by petitioner on August 28, 2023, as a First Request for Admissions, that request is moot.