Opinion
2155-22
07-22-2022
LANITA HILL-DESIRE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On January 19, 2022, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case, indicating therein that with respect to tax year 2019 petitioner seeks review of a (1) notice of determination concerning collection action and (2) 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). Among other things, petitioner attached the following documents to her petition: (1) a copy of a notice of determination denying petitioner relief from joint and several liability (innocent spouse relief) with respect to the 2014 tax year (a year for which petitioner apparently filed a joint income tax return with her husband), dated February 1, 2019, (2) a copy of a Form 8379, Injured Spouse Allocation, that petitioner filed with respect to her 2019 income tax refund, and (3) a partial copy of petitioner's 2019 income tax return showing that petitioner selected head of household filing status for that tax year. No copy of a notice of determination concerning collection action is attached to the petition.
On March 14, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the grounds that petitioner was issued no notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court with respect to petitioner's 2019 tax year. On May 9, 2022, respondent filed a First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, asserting among other things that this Court also lacks jurisdiction as to petitioner's 2014 tax year as no notice of deficiency or notice determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court was issued to petitioner for her 2014 tax year. On June 13, 2022, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, As Supplemented.
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; Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). In a case seeking review of certain IRS collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction generally depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) 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. Similarly, our jurisdiction with respect to a request for relief from joint and several liability under I.R.C. section 6015 (innocent spouse relief) depends on the earlier of either (1) the issuance of a notice of determination concerning a request for relief from joint and several liability and the timely filing of a petition within 90 days of the date of that notice, or (2) the failure of the IRS to make a determination within 6 months of an election or request for relief. See I.R.C. sec. 6015(e).
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 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. No pertinent claims involving I.R.C. sections 6404(h), 7436, 7623, or 7345, respectively, appear to be involved in this case.
In the petition and the objection to the motion to dismiss, petitioner contends that a portion of her 2019 tax refund was wrongfully applied to past tax debts of her former husband and petitioner, therefore, seeks to recover that portion of her 2019 tax refund. Drawing from petitioner's statements in the petition and her objection to the motion to dismiss, as well as documents attached to the petition, it appears that (1) on February 1, 2019, almost two years before the petition in this case was filed, petitioner was issued a notice of determination denying her request for relief from joint and several liability under I.R.C. section 6015 (innocent spouse relief) for the 2014 tax year, (2) subsequently a portion of petitioner's refund for tax year 2019 (a tax year for which petitioner did not file a joint income tax return) was applied to the joint tax liability owing for 2014, (3) petitioner filed Form 8379, Injured Spouse Allocation, in an effort to recover the portion of her 2019 refund that was applied to tax year 2014, and (4) petitioner filed the petition in this case after being denied injured spouse relief with respect to tax year 2019.
We first note that a notice denying a taxpayer injured spouse relief is distinct from a notice of determination denying innocent spouse relief under I.R.C. section 6015. While this Court has jurisdiction under I.R.C. section 6015 to review notices of determination with respect to innocent spouse relief, the same is not true with respect to denials of injured spouse relief. In addition, as to the notice of determination issued to petitioner denying her innocent spouse relief for tax year 2014, the petition to commence this case was not timely filed. Finally, except in a case based on a notice of deficiency, this Court does not have jurisdiction to make determinations concerning overpayments or refunds. Taxpayers generally have two years to file a lawsuit following the disallowance of a claim for refund. See I.R.C. sec. 6532(a)(1). The Tax Court, however, is not the proper court in which to file such an action. A taxpayer may seek a judicial remedy for wrongful denial of refund claims- i.e., a refund suit in compliance with I.R.C. sections 6532(a)(1) and 7422(a)-either in the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1491(a)(1), or in Federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346(a)(1). Those statutes do not confer refund jurisdiction on the Tax Court. Accordingly, this Court cannot and does not decide whether petitioner is entitled to recover a refund for the 2019 tax year.
Petitioner has not shown that she was issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination, or that the IRS failed to make any determination, that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in this case. That being so, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration 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.