Opinion
9722-24
07-22-2024
MARSHA FRANCINA CONSTANTINE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On July 19, 2024, respondent filed in the above-docketed case a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the grounds that no notice of deficiency was sent to petitioner with respect to tax year 2021, nor has respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner's tax year 2021 that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Petitioner objects to the granting of respondent's motion. For the reasons that follow, we will grant respondent's motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. We may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters. In addition, jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a taxpayer invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the taxpayer's case. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960).
In a deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the filing of a petition by the petitioner. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). Similarly, our jurisdiction in the collection due process context depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination concerning collection action. See I.R.C. §§ 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).
In response to respondent's motion, petitioner filed sixteen documents (Docket Index Nos. 33 through 48), most of them improperly titled and duplicative. Petitioner's argument appears to be that the IRS Notice CP12 that she was issued on June 13, 2022, confers jurisdiction on this Court. However, a Notice CP12 does not constitute a notice of deficiency or determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. See
Peak v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-128, at *9 ("A Notice CP12 is issued as a first notice to inform the taxpayer of a math error on an individual return that changes the refund amount claimed on that return.") (citing Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) pt. 21.3.1.5.8(1) (Sept. 12, 2017)). As petitioner has not produced any notice of deficiency or demonstrated that respondent made any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as to the 2021 tax year, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's filings at Docket Index Nos. 43 and 48 are recharacterized as petitioner's Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and petitioner's First Supplement to Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, respectively. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's filings at Docket Index Nos. 33 through 42, and 44 through 47, are recharacterized as petitioner's Exhibit(s). It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.