Opinion
19895-22
03-22-2023
KIMBERELY S. HARRIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On September 1, 2022, the Court received from petitioner a letter, which was filed as an imperfect petition to commence this case in order to protect the taxpayer's interests to the extent possible. On September 29, 2022, petitioner filed an amended petition, therein raising issues related to her 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2021 tax years. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court is attached to the petition or amended petition.
On December 2, 2022, and December 28, 2022, respectively, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and a First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (hereinafter referred to collectively as the motion to dismiss). In respondent's motion to dismiss, he asserts that this case should be dismissed on the grounds that no notice of determination concerning collection action was issued to petitioner, nor has respondent made any other determination, as to petitioner's 2016, 2018, 2020, or 2021 tax years that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
On December 19, 2022, and January 18, 2023, petitioner filed replies in opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss. To the extent that the Court can understand petitioner's replies in opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner argues that certain actions taken by the IRS and certain notices that she has received from the IRS provide this Court with jurisdiction of this case.
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 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 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 petitioner has properly requested and received 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.
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 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 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.
Although petitioner argues that we have jurisdiction of this case, Internal Revenue Code section 7442 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. Petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that, prior to filing the petition in this case, she was issued any notice of determination concerning collection action, or that the IRS made any other determination, as to her 2016, 2018 2020, or 2021 tax years sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. However, although petitioner may not prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may continue to pursue administrative resolution of her tax liabilities directly with the IRS.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, as supplemented, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.