Opinion
9710-20
06-03-2021
Jeffrey L. Jenkins Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
The initial petition underlying the above-docketed proceeding was filed on July 10, 2020, and an amended petition followed on September 29, 2020. Both referenced taxable year 2016 as the period in dispute. No notices of deficiency or determination issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were attached to either document. Rather, the sole IRS communication included was a copy of an IRS Account Transcript for the 2016 year.
Subsequently, on October 7, 2020, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the general premise that, as of the date the petition herein was filed, no notice of deficiency or determination had been issued that would allow petitioner to invoke the Court's jurisdiction at that juncture. More specifically, the motion set forth circumstances indicating as grounds for dismissal: (1) That the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) with respect to a deficiency for taxable year 2016, and that a notice of deficiency for such year had been the subject of a proceeding at Docket No. 6966-18; and (2) that no notice of determination under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C., to form the basis for a petition to this Court had been sent to petitioner with respect to taxable year 2016, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner's such tax year that would confer jurisdiction as of the time the petition was filed. Attached to the motion were copies of a notice of deficiency for the taxable year 2016 dated July 10, 2017, and the corresponding certified mail list, as evidence of the fact that such notice was sent to petitioner by certified mail on July 6, 2017.
Review of the record for the prior litigation at Docket No. 6966-18 shows that the petition had been filed on April 9, 2018; that a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground of an untimely petition had been filed on May 7, 2018; and that the motion had been granted and the case closed by an Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction entered June 22, 2018.
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 a case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the issuance by the Commissioner of a valid notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983). The jurisdiction of the Court in a deficiency case also depends in part on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982). In this regard, section 6213(a), I.R.C., provides that the petition must be filed with the Court within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). The Court has no authority to extend this 90-day (or 150-day) period. Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, a petition shall be treated as timely filed if it is filed on or before the last date specified in such notice for the filing of a Tax Court petition (but after issuance), a provision which becomes relevant where that date is later than the date computed with reference to the mailing date. Sec. 6213(a), I.R.C. Likewise, if the conditions of section 7502, I.R.C., are satisfied, a petition which is timely mailed may be treated as having been timely filed.
Similarly, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination concerning collection action under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C., depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C. Secs. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), I.R.C.; Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (2000). A condition precedent to the issuance of a notice of determination is the requirement that a taxpayer have requested a hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals within the 30-day period specified in section 6320(a) or 6330(a), I.R.C., and calculated with reference to an underlying Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320, Final Notice of Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (or the equivalent Notice CP90, Intent to seize your assets and notice of your right to a hearing, depending on the version of the form used), or analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under section 6330(f), I.R.C. (e.g., a Notice of Levy on Your State Tax Refund and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing).
A late or untimely request for a hearing nonetheless made within a one-year period calculated with reference to one of the types of final notice of lien or levy just described will result only in a so-called equivalent hearing and corresponding decision letter, which decision letter is not a notice of determination sufficient to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C. Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255, 262-263 (2001). A request for a hearing made after said one-year period will be denied, and neither a hearing under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C., nor an equivalent hearing will be afforded. Secs. 301.6320-1(i)(2), Q&A-I7, I11; 301.6330-1(i)(2), Q&A-I7, I11, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Where a hearing has been timely requested in response to one of the types of notices set forth supra, the IRS Office of Appeals is directed to issue a notice of determination entitling the taxpayer to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. In that context, section 6330(d)(1), I.R.C., specifically provides that the petition must be filed with the Tax Court within 30 days of the determination. The Court has no authority to extend this 30-day period. Weber v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 258, 263 (2004); McCune v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 114, 117-118 (2000). However, if the conditions of section 7502, I.R.C., are satisfied, a petition which is timely mailed may be treated as having been timely filed.
Other types of IRS notice which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, include a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief From Joint and Several Liability, a Notice of Final Determination Not To Abate Interest, a Notice of Determination of Worker Classification, Notice of Certification of Your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt to the State Department, or a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Whistleblower Action. No pertinent claims involving section 6015, 6404(h), 7436, 7345, or 7623, I.R.C., respectively, have been implicated here.
Petitioner was served with a copy of respondent's motion, and, on March 11, 2021, filed an objection. Therein, petitioner did not directly dispute the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion regarding timeliness and lack of relevant notices. Rather, the brief objection seemed to take the position that the evidence now available to support petitioner's position should allow for the matter to be considered anew, as well as to emphasize petitioner's desire to work towards a resolution. Specifically, petitioner stated: "I do have sufficient evidence to remand a Review of the original decision to Reverse the Earned Income Tax Credit from the 2016 Federal Income Tax return. I do have a legal representative working with me on this and would like to move forward with the process." Nonetheless, petitioner neither cited nor attached any relevant notice of deficiency or determination that could provide the Court with jurisdiction over 2016 in this case.
Hence, given the foregoing, the absence on the record proffered of any pertinent notice to support an exercise of jurisdiction over 2016 in this case as of the July 10, 2020, date the petition was filed becomes apparent. To the extent that the matter might be characterized as stemming from the July 10, 2017, notice of deficiency for 2016 previously petitioned at Docket No. 6966-18, the July 10, 2020, petition would be untimely by a margin of more than two and a half years.
As to any other potential basis for an action herein for 2016, the record is equally bereft of any evidence or suggestion that respondent has at any time issued any other relevant notice of deficiency or determination for the year that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Conversely, the record at this juncture might suggest that petitioner may have sought the assistance of the Court after having become frustrated with attempts to work administratively with the IRS but that the petition here was not based upon or instigated by a specific IRS notice expressly providing petitioner with the right to contest a particular IRS determination in this Court. Suffice it to say that no IRS communication supplied or mentioned by petitioner to date constitutes, or can substitute for, a notice of deficiency under section 6212, I.R.C., a notice of determination issued pursuant to sections 6320 and/or 6330, I.R.C, or any other of the narrow class of specified determinations by the IRS that can open the door to the Tax Court, as of the date the petition was filed. Petitioner's expansive view of the Court's authority fails to comport with the limited nature of the jurisdiction set forth in the statutory parameters recounted above. Without a specific statutory grant to the Court to address a particular notice or scenario, the Court has no general jurisdiction to consider and redress complaints merely because they may pertain to taxes.
Similarly, the Court has no authority to extend that period provided by law for filing a petition "whatever the equities of a particular case may be and regardless of the cause for its not being filed within the required period." Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). Accordingly, since petitioner has failed to establish that the petition was mailed or filed within the required period with respect to the notice of deficiency for 2016 and has failed to establish the existence of any other determination by the IRS that could support this litigation for 2016, dismissal as to that year would follow under the usual jurisdictional proscriptions.
Moreover, aside from general parameters of timeliness or absence of appropriate notice, because petitioner previously challenged the notice of deficiency for 2016 at Docket No. 6966-18, it likewise follows that such notice does not provide a basis for petitioner to invoke the Court's jurisdiction in this action, nor does the Court have the authority to vacate its decision, which is now final. See Abatti v. Commissioner, 859 F.2d 115, 117 (9th Cir. 1988), aff'g 86 T.C. 1319 (1986). Except in very limited situations, none of which has been shown to apply here, this Court lacks jurisdiction over a proceeding once a decision or dismissal for lack of jurisdiction becomes final within the meaning of section 7481, I.R.C. See sec. 6214(d), I.R.C.; Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006); Rice v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-236. A reviewable decision of the Tax Court becomes final "Upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a notice of appeal, if no such notice has been duly filed within such time". Sec. 7481(a)(1), I.R.C. Section 7483, I.R.C., provides that a notice of appeal may be filed within 90 days after a decision is entered. A nonreviewable decision, such as a disposition in a small tax case "S" proceeding, becomes final "upon the expiration of 90 days after the decision is entered". Sec. 7481(b), I.R.C. Consequently, the decision in Docket No. 6966-18 has long since become final, and the Court therefore may not revisit that disposition.
The Court would, however, encourage petitioner to consider or continue working administratively through the IRS, which in certain circumstances may be able to provide additional remedies not dependent on a Tax Court case, such as audit reconsideration or a refund action.
Thus, the premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.