Opinion
1549-21L
07-29-2022
W. BENJAMIN HAM & SHARI HAM, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On January 19, 2021, petitioners filed the petition to commence this case, indicating n the petition form that they seek review of a purported notice of determination concerning collection action with respect to their 1999, 2000, 2001, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013 tax years. No notice of determination concerning collection action for the tax years in question is attached to the petition. Instead petitioners attached a Decision Letter on Equivalent Hearing Under Internal Revenue Code Sections 6320 and/or 6330 (decision letter) that was issued to petitioners for their 1999, 2000, 2001, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013 tax years.
On May 4, 2021, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the ground that no notice of determination concerning collection action for tax years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013, nor any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court, was issued to petitioners. On July 28, 2021, petitioners filed a Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, objecting to the granting of respondent's motion.
This 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 I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330 depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals. I.R.C. secs. 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 is the requirement that a taxpayer have requested a hearing (referred to as a collection due process or CDP hearing) before the IRS Office of Appeals within the 30-day period specified in I.R.C. section 6320(a) or 6330(a) and calculated with reference to 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).
A late or untimely request for a CDP hearing nonetheless made within a one-year period calculated with reference to one of the types of final notice of lien or levy above described will result, if requested, only in a so-called equivalent hearing and corresponding decision letter, which decision letter is not a notice of determination sufficient to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330. Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255, 262-263 (2001). A request for a CDP hearing made after the one-year period will be denied, and neither a hearing under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330, nor an equivalent hearing, will be provided. I.R.C. secs. 301.6320-1(i)(2), Q&A-I7, I11; 301.6330-1(i)(2), Q&A-I7, I11, Proced. & Admin. Regs. Where a CDP hearing has been timely requested in response to one of the types of notices set forth above, the IRS Office of Appeals is directed to issue a notice of determination entitling the taxpayer to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. .
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, a notice of final determination not to abate interest, 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 respondent's motion to dismiss, respondent asserts that: (1) on March 28, 2017, respondent issued petitioners a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320, (2) that notice gave petitioners until May 1, 2017, to request a CDP hearing, but petitioners did not request a hearing on or before May 1, 2017, and (3) respondent received petitioners' request for a CDP hearing on March 8, 2018. Thus it appears that, because petitioner's CDP hearing request was filed after May 1, 2017, but within within one year of that date, respondent provided petitioners an equivalent hearing. Thereafter respondent issued petitioners a decision letter, rather than the notice of determination concerning collection action that would have been issued if petitioners' CDP hearing request had been timely. The Court notes that the Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320 was sent to petitioners at the same address as petitioners' address in the Court's record.
In their response to the motion to dismiss, petitioners essentially do not dispute respondent's jurisdictional allegations. Furthermore, petitioners concede that their former attorney repeatedly missed deadlines. Nonetheless petitioners state that they are asking for "an impartial ear to hear our arguments" and they believe that the Tax Court is the proper venue for their case.
I.R.C. section 7442, however, does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters. As discussed above, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. If the Court does not have jurisdiction, we cannot reach the merits of a case. Petitioners have not produced or otherwise demonstrated that they have been issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination for their 1999, 2000, 2001, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013 tax years that would permit them to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.