Opinion
10706-23
09-25-2023
JOHNATHAN RYAN CORNISH, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On June 29, 2023, petitioner filed the Petition with respect to tax years 2020 and 2021. Therein petitioner alleged that he is entitled to economic impact payments for both tax years. Petitioner did not attach a copy of a notice of deficiency for tax year 2020 or 2021 to his Petition. He instead attached a Notice CP12 referencing adjustments to his tax return for 2020 and a corresponding adjustment to his refund for that year.
On July 31, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency, as authorized by Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6212 and required by I.R.C. section 6213(a) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, was issued to petitioner for 2020 or 2021, nor has respondent made any other determination with respect to tax year 2020 or 2021 that would confer jurisdiction on the Court. On August 14, 2023, petitioner filed a Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Response), in which he objected to respondent's Motion.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). 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 case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the issuance by the Commissioner of a valid notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. Rule 13(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because, without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).
In his August 14, 2023, Response, petitioner suggests that the Notice CP12 attached to his Petition is sufficient to support the Court's jurisdiction in this case. 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)). Petitioner, who bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over this case, has not produced a notice of deficiency or determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Accordingly, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
To the extent petitioner may be seeking a refund, the Tax Court is not the proper court in which to file a lawsuit challenging the IRS's denial of a claim for refund. A taxpayer may seek a judicial remedy for wrongful denial of claims for refund -i.e., a refund suit in compliance with I.R.C. sections 6532(a)(1) and 7422(a)-only in the United States Court of Federal Claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), or in Federal district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). Those statutes do not confer refund jurisdiction on the Tax Court.
Upon due consideration, it is
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 for Continuance, filed September 5, 2023, is moot.