Opinion
5009-22
03-16-2023
JASON JACOBSOHN & HILLARY JACOBSOHN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Emin Toro, Judge
This case is currently calendared for trial during the Court's May 22, 2023, Chicago, Illinois, trial session. On March 8, 2023, respondent filed an unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 11). That Motion references Exhibits A, B, and C; however, no exhibits are attached to the Motion as filed.
On March 13, 2023, respondent filed a second unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 13) with attached exhibits. The Motion states that there is "no deficiency in income tax due by petitioners for taxable year 2019 as defined by I.R.C. § 6211 and thus the Notice of Deficiency was not authorized by I.R.C. § 6212. As such, there is no basis for a petition to this Court as required by I.R.C. § 6213(a)."
The Motion states the following facts:
Petitioners seek a redetermination of an alleged deficiency determined by respondent for taxable year 2019.
Respondent issued an automated 30-day letter, or CP2000, to petitioners on May 3, 2021, which proposed an adjustment to petitioners' income tax liability for taxable year 2019 in the amount of $2,980, and an additional withholding credit in the amount of $1,361.00, thus leaving a liability of income tax of $1,659.00 after application of the withholding credit. . . .
In response to the CP2000, respondent received a payment from petitioners in the amount of $1,659.00 on June 1, 2021.
Respondent issued the Notice of Deficiency at issue ... on January 3, 2022, which notice was computed without consideration of petitioners' payment in the amount of $1,659.00.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In addition, jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and taxpayers invoking our jurisdiction bear the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over their 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 case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency. Rule 13(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Normally, it is respondent's determination of a deficiency, as opposed to the existence of a deficiency, that provides a predicate for Tax Court jurisdiction. Baldwin v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 704, 710 (1991) (citing Hannan v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 787, 791 (1969)). Otherwise, in every case in which the Court determined that no deficiency existed, we would lack jurisdiction. Id. at 711. But this Court and others have recognized an exception to this rule when the record shows that the deficiency was paid before the issuance of the Notice of Deficiency. Bendheim v. Commissioner, 214 F.2d 26, 28 (2d Cir. 1954); McConkey v. Commissioner, 199 F.2d 892, 895 (4th Cir. 1952); Estate of Crawford v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. 262, 271 (1966); Walsh v. Commissioner, 21 T.C. 1063, 1067 (1954); Anderson v. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 841, 843 (1948). The unopposed Motion and the record disclose that the exception applies here.
Upon due consideration, it is hereby
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed March 8, 2023, (Doc. 11) is stricken from the Court's record in this case. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed March 13, 2023, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the purported Notice of Deficiency is invalid.