Opinion
21095-22
03-23-2023
CHERI HACKETT & JEFFREY SMITH, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On September 19, 2022, petitioners filed the petition in this case, indicating they seek review of a notice of deficiency and a notice of determination concerning collection action issued for their 2014 tax year. On November 17, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that (1) as to a notice of deficiency issued for petitioners' 2014 tax year, the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code, and (2) respondent has made no other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court as to petitioners' 2014 tax year. Although the Court provided petitioners the opportunity to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion, petitioners have not done so.
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). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); 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 (after the taxpayer has properly requested a collection due process hearing) under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 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. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The record in this case establishes that, as to the notice of deficiency issued for petitioners' 2014 tax year, the petition was not timely filed. Furthermore, petitioners have not produced or otherwise demonstrated that respondent has made any other determination as to their 2014 tax yar that would permit petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. However, although petitioners cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioners may continue to pursue an administrative resolution of the 2014 tax liability directly with the IRS. Also, another remedy potentially available to petitioners, if feasible, is to pay the determined amounts, file a claim for refund with the IRS, and then (if the claim is denied or not acted on for six months), bring a suit for refund in the appropriate Federal district court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 n.5 (1970).
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.