Opinion
11382-24
09-25-2024
ANTHONY BRYANT EAVES, JR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On August 28, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency and no notice of determination concerning collection action was issued to petitioner for tax years 2019 through 2021, nor has respondent made any other determination with respect to tax years 2019 through 2021 that would confer jurisdiction on the Court.
On July 11, 2024, petitioner filed the Petition purporting to dispute tax years 2019 through 2021. Petitioner did not attach a copy of a notice of deficiency or a notice of determination for tax years 2019 through 2021 to his Petition. Instead petitioner filed a notice CP11, a notice CP22A, a notice CP503, a LTR 324C, a LTR 2644C, and a LTR 2645C as an Attachment to Petition. None of these attachments are a notice of deficiency, a notice of determination, or a notice of certification of your seriously delinquent federal tax debt to the department of state.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In a case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the issuance by the Commissioner of a valid notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). 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, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination concerning collection action under section 6320 or 6330, generally depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals under section 6320 or 6330. I.R.C. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000).
Other types of IRS notices which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutory prescribed parameters, include a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief From Joint and Several Liability, a Notice of Final Determination Not To Abate Interest, a Notice of Determination of Worker Classification, a Notice of Certification of Your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt to the State Department, and a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Whistleblower Action. No pertinent claims involving I.R.C. sections 6015, 6404(h), 7436, 7345, or 7623, respectively, have been implicated here.
On September 23, 2024, petitioner filed an Objection to the motion in which petitioner asserts that the Court has jurisdiction because the Internal Revenue Service failed to issue him a tax return for the years at issue. Petitioner attached to his Objection the same notices and letters that petitioner filed as an Attachment to Petition and an additional Notice CP22A. Petitioner did not attach a notice of deficiency, a notice of determination, or a notice of certification of your seriously delinquent federal tax debt to the state department to his Objection. None of the correspondence from the Internal Revenue Service filed as an Attachment to Petition or attached to petitioner's Objection is a notice of deficiency, a notice of determination, or a notice of certification of your seriously delinquent federal tax debt to the state department.
Petitioner has not provided a copy of a notice of deficiency, a notice of determination, or a notice of certification of your seriously delinquent federal tax debt to the state department that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Because no notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or notice of certification of your seriously delinquent federal tax debt to the state department sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court has been sent to petitioner for tax years 2019 through 2021, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
To the extent that petitioner is seeking a refund of taxes paid, petitioner may file a claim for refund with the Internal Revenue Service and, if the claim is denied, sue for a refund in Federal District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 (1970). Taxpayers generally have two years to file a lawsuit following disallowance of a claim for refund. See sec. 6532(a)(1). However, the Tax Court is not the proper forum in which to do so. A taxpayer may seek judicial remedy for wrongful denial of refund claims - i.e., a refund suit in compliance with I.R.C. section 6532(a)(1) and 7422(a), either in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1491(a)(1), or in Federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1346(a)(1). None of those statutes confer refund jurisdiction on this Court.
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.