Opinion
2065-24
05-08-2024
RODNEY Q. FONDA & LAURA K. HADDAD, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
The Petition to commence this case was filed on February 5, 2024. Petitioners indicate in their Petition that they seek review of a notice of deficiency and notice of determination concerning collection action issued with respect to their 2022 tax year. Attached to the Petition are a number of Internal Revenue Service letters and notices, none of which are a notice of deficiency or notice of determination concerning collection action.
On March 21, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the grounds that no notice of deficiency was issued to petitioners, nor has respondent made any other determination, as to petitioners' 2022 tax year that would permit petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. On March 25, 2024, petitioners filed a Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
Like all Federal courts, 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 generally 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; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); 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 under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 (after petitioner has requested and received a collection due process hearing following the issuance of a notice of filing of federal tax lien and/or a final notice of intent to levy) 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. §§6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Other 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 §7623 concerning whistleblower action, and a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent Federal tax debt to the Department of State.
In their response to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioners assert various arguments as to why this Court has jurisdiction of this case. Their arguments, however, are not availing because petitioners have not demonstrated they were issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination that would confer jurisdiction on this Court with respect to their 2022 tax year. Petitioners further indicate that they seek reimbursement for their costs in dealing with this situation.
I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related disputes. As discussed above, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. As petitioners have not produced any notice of deficiency, nor demonstrated that respondent has made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to their 2022 tax year, this case must be dismissed for lack jurisdiction. Any claims for reimbursement of costs must be filed directly with the IRS.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.