Opinion
25111-22S
08-29-2023
LEWIS EUGENE CAZENAVE, 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. Therein, 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 years 2010 and 2011. 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 November 14, 2022, petitioner indicated that he sought review of notices of deficiency issued for the taxable years 2010 and 2011. However, no copies of any such notices are attached to the Petition. Rather, attached thereto is a partial copy of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notice CP91 dated January 10, 2022, informing petitioner of the IRS's intent to seize a portion of his Social Security benefits to pay his 2010 and 2011 tax liabilities.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. See § 7442; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C., slip op. at 11 (Nov. 29, 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, slip op. at 6 n.4 (collecting cases). To the extent petitioner seeks to invoke our deficiency jurisdiction for the taxable years 2010 and 2011, there is no indication in the record that he has been issued a notice of deficiency for those years. See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, slip op. at 15 ("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 such jurisdiction over 2010 and 2011. Consequently, petitioner has failed to carry his burden to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction for 2010 and 2011.
As the foregoing demonstrates, petitioner, 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 as to the taxable years 2010 and 2011. Accordingly, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed January 20, 2023, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.