Opinion
905-24L
04-26-2024
RICKY GRIFFITH, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
KATHLEEN KERRIGAN CHIEF JUDGE.
On March 11, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Notice of Deficiency. As grounds for his motion, respondent asserts that (1) as to tax years 2012 and 2013, the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by Internal Revenue Code section 6213(a), and (2) as to tax year 2020, no notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Although the Court provided petitioner the opportunity to file an objection to respondent's motion, petitioner has not done so.
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 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 the timely filing of a petition within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 n.4 (2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); see Sanders v. Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 161 T.C., slip op. at 7-8 (Nov. 2, 2023) (holding that the Court will continue treating the deficiency deadline as jurisdictional in cases appealable to jurisdictions outside the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit).
The record in this case establishes that, as to notices of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2012 and 2013 tax years, the Petition was not timely filed. In addition, petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that respondent issued any notice of deficiency for petitioner's 2020 tax year sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Notice of Deficiency is granted in that so much of this case relating to a notice of deficiency is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and deemed stricken from the Court's record. Petitioner is advised that so much of this case relating to the notice of determination concerning collection action issued for his 2012, 2013, and 2020 tax years remains pending before the Court.