Opinion
15645-21S
12-22-2021
Charles D. Easley, Jr Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
Petitioner filed the petition to commence this case on May 5, 2021, seeking review with respect to a purported notice of determination concerning collection action. Petitioner attached to the petition a copy of a Notice CP 80 ("We haven't received your tax return"), issued for petitioner's 2013 tax year which indicated that for 2013, petitioner's account had a credit of $47,416.00. Petitioner did not attach to the petition any notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court with respect to his 2013 tax year.
On September 13, 2021, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioner's 2013 tax year was issued to petitioner. On November 15, 2021, petitioner filed an objection to motion to dismiss 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. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In addition, jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a party invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the party'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 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; 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 seeking review of collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction to review certain collection activity of the IRS depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 and the timely filing by the taxpayer of a petition within 30 days of that IRS determination (after the taxpayer has received a notice of Federal tax lien filing or a final notice of intent to levy and has timely requested a collection due process hearing with respect to such notice). Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 492, 498 (2000); I.R.C. secs. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
In his objection, petitioner does not address respondent's jurisdictional allegations, but rather details his reasons for asserting that he is due a refund of $47,416.00 for his 2013 tax year. However, if this Court lacks jurisdiction, we cannot reach the merits of petitioner's case. Petitioner has failed to produce or otherwise demonstrate that he was issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination that would permit him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as to his 2013 tax year.
Based on the foregoing, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, petitioner's primary area of concern appears to relate to a refund or credit he contends he is entitled to for his 2013 tax year. Taxpayers generally have two years to file a lawsuit following the disallowance of a claim for refund. See I.R.C. sec. 6532(a)(1). The Tax Court, however, is not the proper court in which to file such an action. A taxpayer may seek a judicial remedy for wrongful denial of refund claims-i.e., a refund suit in compliance with I.R.C. sections 6532(a)(1) and 7422(a)-either in the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1491(a)(1), or in Federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346(a)(1). Those statutes do not confer refund jurisdiction on the Tax Court. Accordingly, this Court cannot and does not decide whether petitioner is entitled to recover a refund for his 2013 tax year.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.