Opinion
8580-22
01-03-2023
ADAM SAMUEL CRYSTAL & LEE PARK, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Joseph W. Nega, Judge
This deficiency case is currently calendared for an in-person trial for the session of the Court scheduled to commence March 6, 2023, in Boston, Massachusetts. On December 19, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (respondent's motion).
On July 26, 2021, respondent issued an automated 30-day letter, or CP2000, to petitioners which proposed an adjustment to petitioners' income tax liability for taxable year 2019. In response to the CP2000, on August 23, 2021, respondent received a payment from petitioners in the amount of $5,013.00.
On February 7, 2022, respondent issued the Notice of Deficiency, which notice was computed without consideration of petitioners' payment in the amount of $5,013.00. Consequently, respondent seeks to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground that the notice of deficiency issued to petitioners was invalid due to the prior full payment. Respondent further represents that petitioners do not object to the granting of respondent's motion. Attached to respondent's motion were petitioners' account transcripts, which indicate that, prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency, petitioners fully paid their tax liability with respect to the tax year at issue.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in income tax depends on: (1) the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency; and (2) the timely filing of a petition with the Court by the taxpayer. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989). A notice of deficiency is not valid when full payment of the tax at issue has been made prior to the notice being issued to the taxpayer. See Walsh v. Commissioner, 21 T.C. 1063, 1067 (1954); Anderson v. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 841, 843 (1948); see also Peacock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-63, at *7. In such an instance, this Court does not have a deficiency to redetermine and thus lacks jurisdiction over the case. By establishing that full payment was made prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency, respondent has demonstrated that we lack jurisdiction. Accordingly, we will grant respondent's motion.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed December 19, 2022, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.