Opinion
22449-22
03-28-2023
BILL DOUGLAS GOLDEN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On October 11, 2022, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case, indicating that he seeks review of a notice of deficiency and a notice of determination concerning collection action issued for his 2016 tax year. Petitioner attached to the petition a copy of a Notice CP21E ("Changes to your 2016 Form 1040") issued to him by the IRS. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination concerning collection action, however, is attached to the petition.
On December 9, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that petitioner was issued no notice of deficiency, nor has respondent made any other determination, with respect to petitioner's 2016 tax year sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. On January 27, 2023, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, and, thereafter, on February 10, 2023, petitioner filed a First Supplement to Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (these documents will be collectively referred to hereafter as petitioner's objection).
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 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 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, petitioner essentially argues that the merits of his case provide this Court with jurisdiction. Petitioner cites Romano-Murphy v. Commissioner, 152 T.C. 278 (2019) in support of his position. However, petitioner's reliance on Romano-Murphy is misplaced. That case specifically involves the trust fund recovery penalty, which is not an issue in this case, and the taxpayer had been issued a notice of determination concerning collection action, which provided the basis for the Court's exercise of jurisdiction in that case.
I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters. As discussed above, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. The Notice CP21E issued to petitioner is not a notice of deficiency or notice of determination that permits petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Because petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that he was issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to his 2016 tax year, 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.