Opinion
23725-21
12-13-2021
William Stacey Harvey Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
On September 22, 2021, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination is attached to that petition.
On November 29, 2021, respondent filed a motion for extension of time, requesting additional time within which to file an answer to the petition. On December 2, 2021, respondent filed a answer to the petition.
This 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; Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). Likewise, in a case seeking review of certain collection activity of the IRS, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code section 6320 or 6330 and the timely filing by the taxpayer of a petition within 30 days of that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 492, 498 (2000); I.R.C. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced motion is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that, on or before January 3, 2022, petitioner shall file a response to this Order and attach thereto a copy of the notice of deficiency or notice of determination on which this case is based.