Opinion
4806-23
07-24-2023
JOHN R. DEMOS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On March 2, 2023, the Court received and filed in the above-docketed matter several documents that the Court treated as a Petition. The Petition comprises, in part, copies of (1) correspondence from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to petitioner pertaining to economic impact payments and (2) a letter from the IRS to petitioner disallowing a claim for refund for taxable year 2021. However, the Petition does not include a notice of deficiency or other notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.
Pursuant to our Order issued April 4, 2023, petitioner filed a First Amended Petition on April 24, 2023. Therein petitioner seeks review of a purported notice of final determination not to abate interest for taxable year 2022. He further alleges that he (1) did not receive economic impact payments and (2) is entitled to several refunds. Petitioner did not attach to the First Amended Petition a notice of deficiency, notice of final determination not to abate interest, or any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.
On June 21, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that no notice of final determination not to abate interest, as authorized by Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6404(h)(1), has been sent to petitioner with respect to taxable year 2022, nor has respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Petitioner filed a Response objecting to respondent's Motion on July 11, 2023.
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 in part on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency. Rule 13(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Rsch. 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). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983). Similarly, in a case based on a notice of final determination not to abate interest, our jurisdiction depends in part on the issuance of a final determination by the IRS under I.R.C. section 6404, or the IRS's failure to issue a final determination within 180 days after the filing of a claim for interest abatement. See I.R.C. § 6404(h).
Other 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 determination under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330, a notice of determination of worker classification, a notice of determination under I.R.C. section 7623 concerning whistleblower action, and a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent federal tax debt to the Department of State.
In his Motion respondent asserts that, after a diligent search of his records, he was unable to locate a notice of final determination not to abate interest or any other notice that would confer jurisdiction on this Court with respect to petitioner. In his Response petitioner counters that respondent's failure to locate a jurisdictional notice does not necessarily mean that no notice exists. However, petitioner bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over his case, and he has not produced a notice of deficiency, notice of final determination not to abate interest, or any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Nor has petitioner shown that he filed with the IRS a claim for interest abatement with respect to which the IRS failed to make a final determination within 180 days.
Furthermore, to the extent that the Petition and First Amended Petition reference a disallowed claim for refund, the Tax Court is not the proper court in which to file a lawsuit challenging the IRS's denial of a refund claim. A taxpayer may seek a judicial remedy for wrongful denial of claims for refund-i.e., a refund suit in compliance with I.R.C. sections 6532(a)(1) and 7422(a)-only in the United States Court of Federal Claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), or in Federal district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). Those statutes do not confer refund jurisdiction on the Tax Court.
In the absence of a notice of deficiency, notice of final determination not to abate interest, or any other notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
The foregoing considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.