Opinion
4695-23
06-27-2023
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On March 3, 2023, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case, indicating therein that he seeks review with respect to a notice of deficiency for his 2021 tax year. However, petitioner attached to the petition only a Notice CP13, which informed petitioner that the IRS had found an error on petitioner's 2021 income tax return with respect to a recovery rebate credit claimed by petitioner. Petitioner further indicates in the petition that he seeks all the COVID-19 economic impact payments that he believes he is owed.
On May 4, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the ground that no notice of deficiency was issued, nor had respondent made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court as to petitioner's 2021 tax year. On June 9, 2023, petitioner filed an Opposition 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; 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.
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 section 7623 concerning whistleblower action, and a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent Federal tax debt to the Department of State.
In his objection to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner does not dispute respondent's jurisdictional allegations. Rather, petitioner focuses on explaining the merits of his claims in this case. As discussed above, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. As petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that he was issued any notice of deficiency, or that respondent has made any other determination, as to his 2021 tax year that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court lacks jurisdiction and cannot reach the merits of this case.
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.