Opinion
4449-22S
03-15-2023
CARLOS M. ERAZO AMADOR & JINNY SAAVE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
The petition filed on February 11, 2022, indicates that petitioners seek review of a notice of deficiency and a notice of determination concerning collection action issued for petitioners' 2018 tax year. On May 9, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that, as to a notice of deficiency issued for petitioners' 2018 tax year, the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On December 14, 2022, respondent filed a First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, asserting that, as to a notice of determination concerning collection action for petitioners' 2018 tax year, no such notice was issued to petitioners nor has respondent made any other determination regarding petitioners' 2018 tax yar sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. Although the Court provided petitioners the opportunity to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion, petitioner has not done so.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 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 on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Research 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). Similarly, 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 Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) 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); I.R.C. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The record in this case establishes that, as to the notice of deficiency issued for petitioners' 2018 tax year, the petition was not timely filed. Nor have petitioners produced or otherwise demonstrated that any notice of determination concerning collection action was issued for petitioners' 2018 tax year, or that respondent made any other determination as to petitioners' 2018 tax year that would permit them to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. However, although petitioners cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may continue to pursue an administrative resolution of the 2018 tax liability directly with the IRS.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, as supplemented, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.