Opinion
9305-24
08-01-2024
CHARLES T. GRIMES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
The Petition to commence this case was filed on June 3, 2024. Petitioner indicates therein that he seeks review of a notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code section 7623 concerning whistleblower action. However, no such notice is attached to the Petition.
On July 26, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the grounds that no notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action was issued to petitioner, nor has respondent made any other determination, that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Petitioner objects to the granting of respondent's motion to dismiss.
Like all federal courts, 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 generally 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; Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 6213(a); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); 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 under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330 (after petitioner has requested and received a collection due process hearing following the issuance of a notice of filing of federal tax lien and/or a final notice of intent to levy) 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. §§ 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 under section 6015 (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.
I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related issues. Although petitioner objects to the granting of respondent's motion to dismiss, because petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he was issued any notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action, or that respondent made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, we lack jurisdiction in 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. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Rule 103, filed July 15, 2024, is denied as moot.