Opinion
8850-22
01-11-2023
SAMUEL GRAGO & MICHELLE GRAGO, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Adam B. Landy Special Trial Judge
Pending before the Court are respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, filed June 1, 2022, and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed December 2, 2022. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that no valid notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, has been issued to petitioners with respect to their tax year 2019. Respondent argues that the deficiency was paid prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency (notice), and the determined amount on the notice does not qualify as a deficiency within the meaning of I.R.C. section 6211(a).
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In addition, jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and taxpayers invoking our jurisdiction bear the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over their 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 case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Rule 13(a) and (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Normally, it is respondent's determination of a deficiency, as opposed to the existence of a deficiency, that provides a predicate for Tax Court jurisdiction. Baldwin v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 704, 710 (1991) (citing Hannan v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 787, 791 (1969)). Otherwise, in every case in which the Court determined that no deficiency existed, we would lack jurisdiction. Id. at 711. However, this Court and others have recognized an exception to this rule where the record shows that the deficiency and accuracy-related penalty were paid prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency. Bendheim v. Commissioner, 214 F.2d 26, 28 (2d Cir. 1954); McConkey v. Commissioner, 199 F.2d 892, 895 (4th Cir. 1952); Estate of Crawford v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. 262, 271 (1966); Walsh v. Commissioner, 21 T.C. 1063, 1067 (1954); Anderson v. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 841, 843 (1948).
By Orders served on June 2, 2022 and December 9, 2022, the Court directed petitioners to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motions, and petitioners have failed to do so. Based on the undisputed jurisdictional allegations in respondent's motion, petitioners paid the deficiency at issue prior to the issuance of the notice, and we will grant respondent's jurisdiction motion on the ground that the notice of deficiency issued to petitioner is invalid.
Upon due consideration of respondent's motions and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed December 2, 2022, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the purported notice of deficiency is invalid. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, filed June 1, 2022, is denied as moot.