Opinion
7855-23
07-11-2023
LORI A. CRAWFORD, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On May 18, 2023, petitioner Lori A. Crawford filed the petition to commence this case, seeking review with respect to petitioner's income tax liabilities for tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2017, and civil penalties for tax periods ending December 31, 2016; March 31, 2017; June 30, 2017; September 30, 2017; December 31, 2017; March 31, 2018; June 30, 2018; and September 30, 2018. Attached to the petition is a letter from the IRS, dated April 19, 2023, informing petitioner that the rejection of her offer in compromise with respect to the just-referenced tax years and periods had been sustained by the Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals). No notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court is attached to the petition.
On June 29, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss). In that motion to dismiss, respondent asserts that: (1) as to the above-referenced civil penalties challenged by petitioner, this case is duplicative of petitioner's case at Docket No. 8082-23L; (2) as to a notice of determination concerning collection action issued for petitioner's 2011 and 2012 income tax liabilities, this case is duplicative of petitioner's case (filed jointly with her spouse Todd A. Crawford) at Docket No. 8086-23L; (3) as to a notice of determination concerning collection action issued for petitioner's 2017 income tax liability, this case is duplicative of petitioner's case (filed jointly with her spouse Todd A. Crawford) at Docket No. 8084-23SL, and (4) as to petitioner's 2013 tax year, no notice of determination concerning collection action sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioner's 2013 income tax liability was issued to petitioner.
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). 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 a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). Similarly, in a case seeking review of certain IRS collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination (after petitioner has properly requested and received a collection due process hearing) under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 and the filing by the taxpayer of a petition concerning that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 38 (2005); I.R.C. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
On July 3, 2023, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. In that objection, petitioner concedes that no notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioner's 2013 income tax liabilities has been issued to petitioner.
As to all of the remaining tax years and periods referenced above, however, petitioner contends that the IRS letter informing petitioner that the rejection of her offer in compromise had been sustained by Appeals provides this Court with jurisdiction in this case. We disagree. Internal Revenue Code section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related disputes. The letter attached to the petition in this case is neither a notice of deficiency nor a notice of determination concerning collection action that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, except for petitioner's 2013 income tax liability which petitioner concedes this Court has no jurisdiction over, the tax years and periods at issue in this case are duplicative of other cases filed by petitioner, either individually or jointly with her spouse.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, so much of this case relating to petitioner's 2011 and 2012 income tax liabilities is closed on the grounds of duplication with respect to petitioner's case at Docket No. 8086-23L. It is further
ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, so much of this case relating to petitioner's 2017 income tax liabilities is closed on the grounds of duplication with respect to petitioner's case at Docket No. 8084-23SL. It is further
ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, so much of this case relating to civil penalties for petitioner's tax periods ending December 31, 2016; March 31, 2017; June 30, 2017; September 30, 2017; December 31, 2017; March 31, 2018; June 30, 2018; and September 30, 2018, is closed on the grounds of duplication with petitioner's case at Docket No. 8082-23L. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted in that so much of this case relating to petitioner's 2013 tax year is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.