From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Foley v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Aug 24, 2022
No. 27875-21 (U.S.T.C. Aug. 24, 2022)

Opinion

27875-21

08-24-2022

ARTHUR W. FOLEY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.

On August 13, 2021, the Court received from petitioner a letter, which was filed as the petition to commence this case in order to protect the taxpayer's interests to the extent possible. Petitioner indicates in that letter that he seeks this Court's review with respect to income tax returns for 2019 and 2020 which petitioner contends the IRS had not processed. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court is attached to the petition. On April 13, 2022, petitioner filed a first amended petition in which he states: "Petitioner request[s] that this Court would [compel] the IRS to send the Petitioner his $1,400.00 Recovery Rebate Credit."

On June 3, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the grounds that petitioner was not issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioner's 2019 and 2020 tax years. On June 14, 2022, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, in which petitioner further raised his 2021 tax year as an issue in this case. On August 9, 2022, respondent filed a supplement to his motion to dismiss asserting that, as to tax year 2021, this Court also has no jurisdiction as no notice of deficiency or notice of determination was issued to petitioner for that tax year that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. On August 9, 2022, petitioner filed a second Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, which the Court will recharacterize as a supplement to petitioner's first Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

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 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). Similarly, in a case seeking review of certain IRS collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction generally 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. 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.

Other types of 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 final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim (or failure of IRS to make final determination within 180 days after claim for abatement), a notice of determination of worker classification, a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action, and a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent Federal tax debt to the Department of State. No pertinent claims involving I.R.C. sections 6015, 6404(h), 7436, 7623, or 7345, respectively, appear to be involved in this case.

In his objection to respondent's motion to dismiss, as supplemented, petitioner contends that this Court has jurisdiction of this case based on letters he has received from the IRS. However, I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters and none of those letters specified by petitioner is a notice of deficiency or notice of determination, as discussed above, that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. As petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that he has been issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.

In view of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that petitioner's second Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed August 9, 2022, is recharacterized as a First Supplement to Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. It is further

ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, as supplemented, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.


Summaries of

Foley v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Aug 24, 2022
No. 27875-21 (U.S.T.C. Aug. 24, 2022)
Case details for

Foley v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR W. FOLEY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Court:United States Tax Court

Date published: Aug 24, 2022

Citations

No. 27875-21 (U.S.T.C. Aug. 24, 2022)