Opinion
3507-23
04-02-2024
JOHN ALFRED CARR, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Joseph W. Nega Judge
This case is calendared for trial at the Detroit, Michigan, trial session of the Court scheduled to commence on April 29, 2024. Pending before the Court are respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 13, 2024, and supplemented on March 22, 2024, and petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 2, 2024.
On January 3, 2023, respondent issued a Notice of Deficiency for taxable year 2020 determining a deficiency of $15,554 and an accuracy-related penalty of $3,111. In the motion, respondent represents that petitioner remitted payment in the amount of $15,554 that was received by respondent and posted on April 28, 2022, which was the exact amount needed to satisfy the deficiency for tax year 2020. On August 30, 2022, petitioner made an additional payment of $3,647.00 to satisfy penalty and interest. The payment received from petitioner on April 28, 2022, satisfied the taxpayer's entire tax liability for the tax year 2020 and preceded the mailing of the Notice of Deficiency on January 3, 2023; thus, such payment satisfies the taxpayer's tax liability and no notice of deficiency should have been mailed.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in income tax depends on: (1) the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency; and (2) the timely filing of a petition with the Court by the taxpayer. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989). A notice of deficiency is not valid when full payment of the tax at issue has been made prior to the notice being issued to the taxpayer. See Walsh v. Commissioner, 21 T.C. 1063, 1067 (1954); Anderson v. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 841, 843 (1948); see also Peacock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-63, at *7. In such an instance, this Court does not have a deficiency to redetermine and thus lacks jurisdiction over the case. By establishing that full payment was made prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency, respondent has demonstrated that we lack jurisdiction. Accordingly, we will grant respondent's motion.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed March 2, 2024, is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 13, 2024, and supplemented on March 22, 2024, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.