Opinion
13594-24S
11-04-2024
MICHAEL GUREN & DANIELLE GUREN Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK O F JURIS DICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On August 20, 2024, petitioners filed the Petition to commence this case. Therein, petitioners indicate that the type of Internal Revenue Service notice challenged is "Other" and they state:
"a. As of August 20, 2024, I have not received any correspondence from the IRS regarding my 2019 amended tax return. According to the IRS web portal, the IRS received my amended 2019 tax return on June 15, 2021, and their review was not completed until March 10, 2023. The IRS owes me over $10,000 due to a TurboTax clerical error on the original 2019 tax return.
b. Despite the extended review process, the IRS has failed to communicate or explain the reasons for denying my amended return.
c. I made numerous attempts to resolve this issue telephonically, including an in-person appointment that was improperly handled by the IRS, further exacerbating my inability to resolve this matter."
On October 8, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) asserting that this case should be dismissed on the grounds that no notice of deficiency was issued, nor has respondent made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioners' 2019 tax year. On October 30, 2024, petitioners filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
The Tax 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 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 case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the issuance by the Commissioner of a valid notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).
Similarly, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination with regard to certain collection activity under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination concerning collection action by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals. I.R.C. §§ 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (2000). An essential prerequisite to the issuance of a notice of determination concerning collection action is the requirement that a taxpayer have requested a hearing before the IRS Independent Office of Appeals specified in I.R.C. section 6320(a) or 6330(a) after being issued an underlying notice of Federal tax lien filing, notice of intent to levy, or analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under I.R.C. section 6330(f) (e.g., a notice of levy on your State tax refund and notice of your right to a hearing).
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 a request for 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 not to abate interest (or failure of IRS to make final determination within 180 days after claim for abatement), a determination of worker classification, a notice of determination 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. section 6015, 6404(h), 7436, 7623, or 7345, respectively, appear to be involved in this case.
In their objection to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioners contend that this Court has jurisdiction of this case for several reasons, including that the IRS has violated their rights under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the IRS has improperly withheld a notice of deficiency, petitioners have filed an informal claim for refund by filing an amended tax return for 2019 and the IRS' delay in processing that amended return constitutes a de facto denial of their refund claim, and petitioners have been unable to resolve this matter administratively with the IRS.
However, petitioners' arguments that the just-described factors provide this Court with jurisdiction of this case are unavailing. I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related issues. While we are sympathetic to petitioners' circumstances, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, as discussed above, and we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. Because petitioners have not demonstrated that they were issued any notice of deficiency, or that respondent made any other determination, that would permit them to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as to their 2019 tax year, we lack jurisdiction of this case. Furthermore, the Tax Court is not the proper court in which to file a lawsuit challenging the IRS' denial of a claim for refund. A taxpayer may seek a judicial remedy for wrongful denial of claims for refund-i.e., a refund suit in compliance with Internal Revenue Code sections 6532(a)(1) and 7422(a)-only in the United States Court of Federal Claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1491(a)(1), or in Federal district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346(a)(1). Those statutes do not confer refund jurisdiction on the Tax Court. Accordingly, this Court cannot and does not decide whether petitioners are entitled to a refund for their 2019 tax year.
Upon due consideration 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.