Opinion
9319-21S
03-07-2022
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
On March 15, 2021, this Court, which is separate and independent from the IRS, received from petitioner a letter which was filed as the petition to commence this case to protect the taxpayer's interests to the extent possible. Petitioner indicates in that letter that he seeks this Court's assistance in correcting the status of a retirement account that petitioner states has been misclassified as a nonqualified account since sometime in 2001 to the present. On July 23, 2021, petitioner filed a first amendment to petition. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court is attached to the petition or the first amendment to petition. On November 8, 2021, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the ground that no notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court has been issued to petitioner for tax years 2000 through 2020. On January 24, 2022, petitioner filed a Letter in response to respondent's motion to dismiss.
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). 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 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.
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 determination concerning relief from joint and several liability (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. No pertinent claims involving I.R.C. sections 6015, 6404(h), 7436, 7623, or 7345, respectively, appear to be involved in this case.
In his response to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner does not address respondent's jurisdictional allegations. Rather, petitioner expresses confusion concerning this Court's jurisdiction and reiterates that he is only trying to have an error corrected. However, as petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that he has been issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination that would confer jurisdiction on this Court, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner's claims in this case. Although petitioner may not prosecute this case in the Tax Court, petitioner may continue to pursue administrative resolution of his tax liabilities directly with the IRS.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.