Opinion
17158-23L
07-02-2024
JOY B. JACKSON HOOPER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed February 29, 2024. Therein respondent moves that the above-docketed case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the Petition was filed before the issuance of a notice of determination concerning collection action to petitioner Joy B. Jackson Hooper.
On October 30, 2023, the Court received and filed the Petition. Although the Petition named Ms. Hooper and Cedric S. Hooper as petitioners, it was not properly executed in that it did not bear their original signatures. The Petition disputed a notice of determination concerning collection action issued September 19, 2023, for tax years 2016, 2017, and 2018. That notice was addressed to Cedric S. Hooper only.
By Order served November 15, 2023, the Court directed Ms. Hooper and Cedric S. Hooper to ratify the Petition. On January 8, 2024, the Court received and filed a Ratification of Petition from Ms. Hooper. No ratification was received from Cedric S. Hooper; accordingly, by Order served January 19, 2024, the case was dismissed as to Cedric S. Hooper.
On January 10, 2024, the Court received a mailing from Ms. Hooper that was filed as a "First Amendment to Petition." Attached to this filing was a notice of determination concerning collection action issued December 5, 2023, to Ms. Hooper for tax years 2016, 2017, and 2018. For the reasons stated in the Court's Order served March 19, 2024, the Court filed this mailing as a new Petition to commence the case at Docket No. 3854-24L.
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See I.R.C. § 7442; Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 1, 11 (2021). I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters. Where, as here, this Court's jurisdiction is duly challenged, our jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown by the party seeking to invoke that jurisdiction. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975). To meet this burden, the party "must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270.
The Court's jurisdiction in the collection due process context depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination under 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. §§ 6320(c) and (d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The record indicates that, when the original Petition in this case was filed on October 30, 2023, no notice of determination concerning collection action had been issued to Ms. Hooper for 2016, 2017, or 2018. Because the Petition in this case appears to be premature, and given that Ms. Hooper's challenge to the December 5, 2023, notice of determination for tax years 2016, 2017, and 2018 remains open in the case at Docket No. 3854-24L, we will direct Ms. Hooper to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that, on or before July 31, 2024, petitioner Joy B. Jackson Hooper shall show cause in writing why respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction should not be granted and why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Ms. Hooper is advised that dismissal of this case will have no bearing on the status of her case at Docket No. 3854-24L.