Opinion
14770-21
03-24-2023
DAVID R. CULP AND ISOBEL B. CULP, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Eunkyong Choi Special Trial Judge
Pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed September 1, 2021. Therein, respondent requests that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the following grounds: (1) to the extent petitioners seek to challenge any collection activity by respondent for the 2018 taxable year, no notice of determination concerning collection action has been issued to petitioners for such year that would permit them to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court; (2) to the extent petitioners may seek redetermination of the deficiency determined in petitioners' federal income tax for the 2018 taxable year, no notice of deficiency has been issued to petitioner for such year that would permit them to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court; and (3) no other determination has been made for petitioners' 2018 taxable year that would permit them to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioners filed a response to respondent's motion on October 1, 2021. For the reasons set forth below, we must grant respondent's motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See 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). 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 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) (citing Sarell v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 122, 125 (2001)); Secs. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b). Further, in a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court generally depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. See secs. 6212(a), 6213(a), and 6214(a); Rule 13(a) and (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989).
All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Respondent's diligent search of records kept in the ordinary course of business revealed no evidence that responded mailed a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under Section 6320 and/or 6330 to petitioners for taxable year 2018, and no such notice was attached to the petition. The search further showed that no valid notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212(a) and required by section 6213(a) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, had been issued to petitioners with respect to taxable year 2018, and no such notice was attached to the petition. Finally, the search also showed that respondent made no other determination regarding petitioners for taxable year 2018 that would confer jurisdiction on this Court.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for lack of Jurisdiction as to taxable year 2018 is granted. It is further
ORDERED that this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to any notice of determination concerning collection action for taxable year 2018 and any notice of deficiency for taxable year 2018, and references in the petition to any such notices are deemed stricken.