Opinion
10315-23
09-16-2024
ANDREW HARRIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On June 21, 2023, petitioner filed with this Court (which is separate and independent of the Internal Revenue Service) the Petition to commence this case, in which petitioner sought review of a notice of deficiency issued for his 2021 tax year. On August 15, 2023, the Court entered a Stipulated Decision. In that Decision, the parties agreed that petitioner owed no deficiency in income tax and no penalty under Internal Revenue Code section 6662(a) with respect to petitioner's 2021 tax year.
On May 31, 2024, petitioner submitted in this case another Petition form, which the Court lodged as a First Amendment to Petition. Attached to that document were several IRS letters and collection notices that petitioner had received after entry of the above-referenced Stipulated Decision.
By Order served June 12, 2024, the Court filed petitioner's First Amendment to Petition as a Motion to Reopen Case and directed respondent to file a response to that Motion.
On July 12, 2024, respondent filed a response to petitioner's Motion, stating therein that: (1) the collection notices sent to petitioner by the IRS were sent in error; (2) respondent's counsel's paralegal had been in communication with IRS processing personnel to have petitioner's 2021 IRS account corrected; and (3) a recent review of petitioner's 2021 IRS account showed a balance due of $0.00. Respondent also attached a copy of petitioner's account transcript for tax year 2021 which showed a $0.00 balance due. Respondent, therefore, requests that petitioner's Motion be denied.
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; Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 6213(a); 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 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, a final notice of intent to levy, or an analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under I.R.C. section 6330(f), such as a notice of levy on your State tax refund and notice of your right to a hearing) 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.
Other 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 under section 6015 (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.
Here, as to the notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2021 tax year, a Stipulated Decision was entered which final in November 2023, and the Court no longer has jurisdiction of this case based on that notice of deficiency. Petitioner additionally has not demonstrated that respondent made any other determination as to his 2021 tax year that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. As a result, therefore, the Court has no authority to provide the relief requested by petitioner. Accordingly, the Court is obliged to deny petitioner's Motion.
In view of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Reopen Case, filed June 12, 2024, is denied.