Opinion
14945-21
03-22-2022
Paul Jaworski and Anne Jaworski Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
On April 28, 2021, petitioners filed the petition to commence a case at Docket No. 14876-21, seeking review of a notice of deficiency, dated January 25, 2021, issued to them for their 2017 tax year. That case is currently pending before the Court.
On July 18, 2021, the petition to commence this case was filed. That petition states that petitioners seek review with respect to a notice of deficiency, dated April 19, 2021, issued for petitioners' 2018 tax year.
On September 22, 2021, petitioners filed a first amended petition, seeking to include in this case review of their 2017 tax year based on the issuance to petitioners of a Notice CP 22E, dated August 30, 2021, related to their 2017 tax year. That notice informed petitioners that the IRS had made changes to their 2017 Form 1040 and petitioners owed $61,949.03 for tax year 2017 based on those changes.
On November 2, 2021, respondent filed an answer to amended petition, among other things therein pointing out that petitioners had already filed a challenge with respect to their 2017 tax year in their case at Docket No. 14876-21.
On January 13, 2022, petitioners filed in this case a motion to restrain assessment or collection or to order refund of amount collected (motion to restrain). Petitioners assert in their motion that (1) on October 4, 2021, petitioners were issued a Notice CP49, (2) the Notice CP49 informed petitioners that, with respect to an overpayment in the amount of $97,630.00 for petitioners' 2020 tax year, the amount of $61,255.42 was applied to petitioners' 2017 tax liability and the amount of $30,308.30 was applied to petitioners' 2018 tax liability, and (3) when petitioners' pending Tax Court cases were brought to the IRS' attention, the IRS improperly placed a freeze on petitioners' 2020 refund pending resolution of the Tax Court proceedings. By their motion, petitioners seek an order restraining the IRS from any further collection actions in connection with their 2017 and 2018 tax years, a full refund to them of their 2020 overpayment, and legal fees in connection with the filing of their motion.
On January 14, 2022, the Court issued an Order and Order to Show Cause, directing (1) respondent to file an objection, if any, to petitioner's motion to restrain, and (2) both parties to show cause why so much of this case relating to tax year 2017 should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
On January 27, 2022, respondent filed a response to the Order to Show Cause, therein asserting that this case was not timely filed with respect to the notice of deficiency issued for petitioners' 2017 tax year. On January 31, 2022, petitioner filed a response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, contending that "Ultimately, notwithstanding the different docket numbers, a petition was timely filed for tax year 2017 and the Court, therefore, retains jurisdiction. As a result, for purposes of petitioner's pending motion to restrain assessment or collection or to order refund of amount collected, the Court should consolidate petitioner's tax years 2017 and 2018." We note that no motion to restrain has been filed in petitioners' case at Docket No. 14876-21, nor have petitioners filed motions to consolidate in the case at Docket No. 14876-21 and in this case.
On January 27, 2022, respondent also filed an objection to petitioner's motion to restrain. In that objection, respondent contends that petitioners' motion to restrain should be denied because (1) the premature assessment for tax year 2017 has been abated, (2) the assessment made for tax year 2018 was based on petitioners' self-assessment of their 2018 tax liability shown on their 2018 tax return and no assessment has been made of the amounts proposed in the notice of deficiency for 2018, and (3) as to the overpayment for petitioners' 2020 year, Internal Revenue Code section 6402(a) provides the IRS authority to withhold petitioners' refund and this Court has no jurisdiction in this case with respect to petitioners' 2020 tax year.
We consider first whether this Court has jurisdiction in this case of petitioners' 2017 and 2020 tax years. 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). Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6213(a) provides that the petition must be filed with the Court within 90 days after a valid notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day).
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.
With respect to the notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2017 tax year, clearly the petition to commence this case was not timely filed. However, more relevant is the fact that petitioners previously filed a case at Docket No. 14876-21 to challenge the notice of deficiency for 2017 and therefore any communication concerning petitioners' 2017 tax year must be directed to petitiners' case at Docket No. 14876-21. Accordingly, any claims in this case with respect to petitioners' 2017 tax year in this case are duplicative of petitioners' case at Docket No. 14876-21 and will be deemed stricken from the Court's record.
We next turn to petitioners' motion to restrain. We have already explained that petitioners' claims relating to their 2017 tax year are not properly before the Court in this case. We also find that because petitioners have not produced or otherwise demonstrated that any notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to tax year 2020 was issued to petitioners, their 2020 tax year is not properly before the Court in this case. This Court, therefore, has no authority in this case to restrain assessment or collection or to order a refund with respect to petitioners' 2017 and 2020 tax years.
As to petitioners' 2018 tax year, which is properly before the Court in this case, the Court notes that section 6402(a) allows respondent to credit a taxpayer's overpayment against that taxpayer's outstanding liabilities from prior years. See also sec. 301.6402-3(a)(5), (6), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Furthermore, respondent has demonstrated that the assessment made with respect to tax year 2018 was made based on petitioners' self-assessment of tax liability as shown on their 2018 tax return. As explained in Meyer v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 555, 559 (1991), the Commissioner is authorized to immediately "assess and collect the amount of taxes that are computed and shown due on a taxpayer's individual income tax return, as well as the amount of any additional taxes computed and shown due on a subsequently filed amended income tax return." See also sec.6201(a)(1); sec.301.6211-1(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs. The IRS is also authorized to "immediately assess and collect "the additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1), 6651(a)(2), and 6654, if such additions are determined by the amount of tax shown on the taxpayer's return if a return is filed. Meyer v. Commissioner, 97 T.C.at 559-560; see also I.R.C. sec. 6665(b). Such summary assessments are not subject to normal deficiency procedures and are beyond the scope of this Court's jurisdiction, and no action or proceeding may be commenced to enjoin the IRS' actions. I.R.C. sec.7421(a); Meyer v. Commissioner, 97 T.C.at 560. Additionally, I.R.C. section 6213(a) specifies that the Court "shall have no jurisdiction to enjoin any action or proceeding or order any refund under this subsection unless a timely petition for a redetermination of the deficiency has been filed and then only in respect of the deficiency that is the subject of such petition." [Emphasis added.] Accordingly, this Court has no authority to enjoin respondent from offsetting petitioner's overpayments for tax year 2020 and applying them to petitioners' self-assessed tax liability for tax year 2018.
Finally, to the extent petitioners seek legal fees in connection with their motion to restrain, petitioners' request is premature at this time. See Rule231(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause is discharged. It is further
ORDERED that, as petitioners' claims in this case relating to their 2017 tax year are duplicative of petitioner's case at Docket No. 14876-21, so much of this case relating to petitioners' 2017 tax year is deemed stricken from the Court's record. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's motion to restrain assessment or collection or to order refund of amount collected is denied.