Opinion
8978-20
03-08-2022
Valentin Delatorre Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Albert G. Lauber Judge
This case is calendared on the Court's March 28, 2022, Los Angeles, California, trial session. In June 2020 petitioner mailed the Court a document that is titled "Consent to Assessment and Collection" for the 2018 tax year. On the signature line petitioner wrote "I agree." On July 10, 2020, the Court filed this document as the petition.
In his Answer filed December 29, 2020, respondent noted that the document filed as a petition in this case does not include a copy of a notice of deficiency. Respondent represented that he had not yet located a notice of deficiency issued to petitioner for the tax year at issue. We ordered respondent to submit a copy of the notice.
On March 4, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Respondent represents that he has been unable to locate a statutory notice of deficiency or a certified mailing list showing that a notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner. See I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213. Because he has not established the existence of a notice of deficiency, he states that this case should be dismissed. See Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 742 (1989) (granting taxpayers' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction where the Commissioner failed to prove that a valid notice of deficiency had been issued), aff'd, 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991).
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 4, 2022, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.