Opinion
26025-21
02-07-2023
DIANA GUANINA GONZALEZ & VICTOR HUGO GONZALEZ MENDEZ, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
On July 26, 2021, petitioners filed the petition to commence this case, stating therein that they seek review of notices of deficiency issued for their 2016 through 2019 tax years. In addition, petitioners attached to the petition a notice of deficiency issued for petitioners' 2014 tax year.
On March 15, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2019. Thereafter, on May 18, 2022, respondent filed a First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2019. In respondent's motion, as supplemented, respondent asserts that (1) so much of this case relating to tax years 2014 and 2017 should be dismissed on the grounds that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code, and (2) so much of this case relating to tax years 2016 and 2019 should be dismissed on the grounds that respondent has not made any determination as to those tax years that would permit petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Although the Court provided petitioners the opportunity to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion, petitioner has not done so.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 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 generally 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 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.
The record establishes that, as to tax years 2014 and 2017, the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. Furthermore, as to tax years 2016 and 2019, petitioners have not demonstrated that respondent made any determination that would permit petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. However, although petitioners may not prosecute so much of this case relating to their 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2019 tax years, they may continue to pursue an administrative resolution of their tax liabilities for those years directly with the IRS.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2019, as supplemented, is granted and so much of this case relating to tax years 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2019 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and is deemed stricken from the Court's record in this case. Petitioners are advised that so much of this case relating to the notice of deficiency issued for their 2018 tax year remains pending before the Court.