Opinion
3939-24
05-21-2024
YAMILIN YORDI GUZMAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On March 6, 2024, petitioner filed as an imperfect Petition a copy of a notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2022 tax year. Thereafter, on April 22, 2024, petitioner filed a First Amended Petition, indicating therein that petitioner seeks to dispute a notice of determination concerning collection action. No notice of determination concerning collection action is attached to that document.
On May 2, 2024, respondent filed an Answer to Amended Petition, in which respondent denies that a notice of determination concerning collection action is at issue in this case and that only a notice of deficiency for petitioner's 2022 tax year is properly at issue.
On May 3, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action (2022) (motion to dismiss), asserting that so much of this case relating to a notice of determination concerning collection action for petitioner's 2022 tax year should be dismissed on the grounds that no such notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court was issued to petitioner. On May 16, 2024, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action (2022).
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; 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 Internal Revenue Code (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.
In her objection to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner focuses on explaining the merits of her case and does not address respondent's jurisdictional allegations. Petitioner has not demonstrated that any notice of determination concerning collection action sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court was issued to her. Accordingly, respondent's above-referenced motion to dismiss must be granted.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action (2022) is granted and so much of this case relating to a notice of determination concerning collection action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and deemed stricken from the Court's record. Petitioner is advised, however, that so much of this case relating to the notice of deficiency issued for her 2022 tax year remains pending before this Court.