Opinion
15221-23L
07-18-2024
ROBERT E. CLAYTON, EZEK.ORG, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
This collection due process (CDP) case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Ezek.org, filed November 3, 2023. By the Motion, respondent moves to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction as to the entity Ezek.org on the ground that no notice of determination concerning collection action, nor any other determination that would permit that entity to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, has been issued to the entity Ezek.org for the taxable years 2008, 2011, and 2012. Petitioner opposes the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion.
Background
The Petition electronically filed to commence this case on September 24, 2023, states that it seeks review of a notice of determination concerning collection action issued on August 31, 2023, for the taxable years 2008, 2011, and 2012. No such notice is attached to the Petition. The caption placed by petitioner on the Petition-and those placed on the Statement of Taxpayer Identification Number and Request for Place of Trial attached thereto-each reads, "Robert E[.] Clayton, Ezek.org."
In the Motion to Dismiss currently pending before the Court, respondent alleges that this case is based upon a notice of determination concerning collection action dated August 31, 2023, and issued to petitioner Robert E. Clayton, sustaining a proposed levy action to collect his Form 1040 federal income tax liabilities for the taxable years 2008, 2011, and 2012. However, as noted above, respondent alleges that no such notice, nor any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, has been issued to the entity Ezek.org for those taxable years. Respondent further alleges that the taxpayer identification number listed by petitioner on the Statement of Taxpayer Identification Number attached to the Petition has been issued to the entity Ezek.org, and that a review of respondent's systems indicates that the entity Ezek.org has previously filed as an estate or trust. Respondent therefore regards the entity Ezek.org as a separate taxpayer.
A copy of that notice is attached to respondent's Motion as Exhibit A. Respondent does not dispute that petitioner Robert E. Clayton has invoked this Court's jurisdiction as to that notice.
On December 16, 2023, petitioner filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Ezek.org. No notice of determination concerning collection action, nor any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, is attached to petitioner's Opposition. Nor does petitioner's Opposition dispute respondent's allegations that no such notice or determination has been issued to the entity Ezek.org. Nor does petitioner's Opposition dispute respondent's allegations that the taxpayer identification number listed by petitioner in the Statement of Taxpayer Identification Number has been issued to the entity Ezek.org, or that the entity Ezek.org has previously filed as an estate or trust.
To date, there is no indication in the record that a notice of determination concerning collection action, or any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, has been issued to the entity Ezek.org for the taxable years 2008, 2011, and 2012.
Discussion
Like all federal courts, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See § 7442; Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 1, 11 (2021). 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.
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.
Our jurisdiction in the CDP context depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination. See §§ 6320(c), 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b); Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8 (2004), aff'd, 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000). It follows that when a valid notice of determination has not been issued to the taxpayer, we are obliged to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. See Offiler, 114 T.C. at 498; Mighty v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-44, slip op. at *2 n.2.
After receiving notice of respondent's jurisdictional allegations and being afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond, petitioner has failed to establish that the entity Ezek.org has been issued a notice of determination concerning collection action, or any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, for the taxable years 2008, 2011, and 2012. Moreover, our own review of the record reveals no indication that respondent has acted-or failed to act-in any manner that could support the Court's jurisdiction over the entity Ezek.org in this case. Consequently, petitioner has failed to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction over that entity in this case, and we must grant respondent's Motion. It is accordingly
As noted above, petitioner's Opposition does not dispute respondent's allegations that no notice of determination concerning collection action, nor any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, has been issued to the entity Ezek.org for the taxable years 2008, 2011, or 2012. Nor does petitioner's Opposition dispute respondent's allegations that the taxpayer identification number listed by petitioner in the Statement of Taxpayer Identification Number attached to the Petition has been issued to the entity Ezek.org, or that the entity Ezek.org has previously filed as an estate or trust. Given petitioner's failure to dispute those allegations, and the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we treat them as established for purposes of the Motion to Dismiss.
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to the entity Ezek.org. All references in the Petition to the 2008, 2011, and 2012 taxable years of the entity Ezek.org are deemed stricken. It is further
ORDERED that the caption of this case is amended to read: "Robert E. Clayton, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent."