Opinion
24785-22
03-20-2023
ROBERT CROWDER, JR., LP TRUST D.B.A. THE 1ST PRACTICE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On November 28, 2022, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case. On the petition form, petitioner did not check any box to indicate which type of IRS notice he was challenging. However, the petition states: "I filed several 3949A, 14039B, and 14039 information returns and Identity Theft Affidavit's and have Not received any notices. These are Whistleblower complaints." Additionally, the petition refers to a potential target taxpayer to whom it appears petitioner's whistleblower claims relate. However, no notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court is attached to the petition.
On December 9, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Rule 103. On December 10, 2022, petitioner filed an application to take the deposition of a certain individual, along with a memorandum of support of that application (Docs. 9 and 10). On December 11, 2022, petitioner filed applications to take the deposition of three other named individuals (Docs. 11, 12, and 13). The motion and applications were denied on December 15, 2022.
On January 12, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. In his motion, respondent asserts that this case should be dismissed on the grounds that petitioner was not issued any notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action nor does it appear that petitioner has filed any Form 211, Application for Award for Original Information, which is a prerequisite to being issued a whistleblower notice of determination.
On February 6, 2023, in opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner filed a document improperly titled Motion to Review the Sufficiency of Answers or Objections to Request for Admissions. We will recharacterize that document as an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. I.R.C. sec. 7442; 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 whistleblower case, Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 7623(b)(4) provides that "[a]ny determination regarding an award under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) may, within 30 days of such determination, be appealed to the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with respect to such matter)." In Kasper v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 37, 45 (2011), the Court held that the 30-day period under section 7623(b)(4) begins to run on the date of mailing or personal delivery of the determination to the claimant at his last known address.
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.
Other types of IRS notices which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, are a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability (or failure of IRS to make determination within 6 months after election or request for relief), a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim (or failure of IRS to make final determination within 180 days after claim for abatement), a notice of determination of worker classification, and a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent Federal tax debt to the Department of State.
In his opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner admits that he has not received a response from the IRS with respect to the forms he submitted, but nevertheless argues that the Court has jurisdiction of this case. We disagree. I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters. As discussed above, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. Because petitioner has not demonstrated that he was issued any notice, or that respondent has made any determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Review the Sufficiency of Answers or Objections to Request for Admissions is recharacterize as an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 345(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, the petition and the above-referenced Docs. 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are sealed from public view and shall not be inspected by any person or entity not a party to this case, except by an Order of the Court. 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.