Opinion
6361-21
04-12-2022
GEORGE P. ESHOO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Emin Toro, Judge
This case was calendared for trial during the Court's April 4, 2022, San Francisco, California, trial session. On March 3, 2022, respondent filed an unopposed Motion for Continuance of Trial (Doc. 13). By Order served March 4, 2022, the Court granted respondent's motion and the case was continued generally.
On March 14, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion to Reconsider and Amend the Order March 4, 2022 Based Upon False Information (Doc. 15). By Order served March 22, 2022, petitioner's motion was set for hearing during the Court's April 4, 2022, San Francisco, California, trial session.
On March 24, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 17) along with a Declaration of Emily Harris (Doc. 18). By Order served March 25, 2022, respondent's motion was also set for hearing during the Court's April 4, 2022, San Francisco, California, trial session.
On April 4, 2022, this case was called and recalled from the calendar for the Court's April 4, 2022, San Francisco, California, trial session. Petitioner and counsel for respondent appeared and was heard.
By Order served April 7, 2022, the Court, among other things, granted petitioner's Motion to Reconsider and Amend the Order March 4, 2022, Based on False Information insofar as it continued the case generally. The Order further directed petitioner to show cause on or before May 6, 2022, why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds the petition was not timely filed.
On April 4, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion to Reconsider and Amend the Order of March 25, 2022, on the Motion to Dismiss Set for Hearing April 4, 2022, Without Sufficient Code Compliant Notice Etc. And Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 23). The Court discussed the April 4 motion with petitioner at the April 4 calendar call. The Court explained why setting respondent's Motion to Dismiss for a hearing at the calendar call was appropriate. 1
In addition, as discussed with petitioner at the calendar call, some of the relief requested in petitioner's April 4 motion has been granted in that the Court's April 7, 2022, Order provided additional time for petitioner to demonstrate that we have jurisdiction in this case. As our Court has explained before, 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).
Upon due consideration, and for reasons more fully appearing in the transcripts of the proceedings, it is hereby
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Reconsider and Amend the Order of March 25, 2022, on the Motion to Dismiss Set for Hearing April 4, 2022, Without Sufficient Code Compliant Notice Etc. And Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed April 4, 2022, is denied in part and denied as moot in part. 2