Opinion
27590-21S
08-23-2022
ANTHONY D. JENKINS & KAY JENKINS, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
The petition underlying the above-docketed proceeding was filed on August 9, 2021, and indicated dispute of a Notice of Deficiency, a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action, and a Notice of Final Determination for [Full/Partial] Disallowance of Interest Abatement Claim (or Failure of IRS to Make Final Determination Within 180 Days After Claim for Abatement). Taxable year 2018 was referenced as the period in contention. No notices of deficiency or determination issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were attached to the petition, nor were any other documents. The comments in the petition centered primarily on complaints regarding the processing and treatment of an amended return and accompanying payment.
Subsequently, on November 16, 2021, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Petitioners' Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action Allegation and Notice of Final Determination for Interest Abatement on the ground that no notice of determination concerning collection action pursuant to section 6320 and/or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) or no notice of final determination for interest abatement claim(s) pursuant to section 6404(h), I.R.C., had been sent to petitioners with respect to the taxable year 2018, as of the date the petition herein was filed. Respondent further advised that the case was properly before the Court as to a notice of deficiency for 2018 dated May 10, 2021, a copy of which was attached.
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).
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 in 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).
In a case based upon failure of the IRS to abate interest, jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Sec. 6404(h), I.R.C.; Rule 280(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Again, 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. Jurisdiction under section 6404(h), I.R.C., also rests in part on issuance of a determination by the IRS under that section or the failure by the IRS to issue such a determination within 180 days of the filing of a claim for interest abatement. More specifically, section 6404(h), I.R.C., provides:
(1) In general.--The Tax Court shall have jurisdiction over any action brought by a taxpayer who meets the requirements referred to in section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) to determine whether the Secretary's failure to abate interest under this section was an abuse of discretion, and may order an abatement if such action is brought--
(A) at any time after the earlier of--
(i) the date of the mailing of the Secretary's final determination not to abate such interest, or
(ii) the date which is 180 days after the date of the filing with the Secretary (in such form as the Secretary may prescribe) of a claim for abatement under this section, and
(B) not later than the date with is 180 days after the date described in subparagraph (A)(i).
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 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, 7436, 7345, or 7623, I.R.C., respectively, have been implicated here. Similarly absent is any suggestion that the perquisites have been met to support one of the statutorily described declaratory judgment actions that may be undertaken by the Court.
Petitioners were served with a copy of respondent's motion and on April 21, 2022, filed an objection. Therein, petitioners did not directly counter the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion, i.e., petitioners did not claim that the IRS had sent a notice of determination concerning collection action or notice of final determination for interest abatement claim for 2018, nor did they reference any request for interest abatement. To the contrary, petitioners simply stated that they lacked sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the majority of the various allegations in respondent's motion "and, therefore, deny same". They did, however, expressly admit that they had not been sent a notice of determination concerning collection action. The objection then closed with a plea that petitioners be allowed to go forward with their cause of action, which may suggest a misunderstanding of the partial nature of respondent's motion. The case as to the notice of deficiency for 2018 will go forward, regardless of any action on the motion, and petitioners will have the opportunity to present any evidence or argument in support of their position as to that deficiency notice.
At this juncture, the record reflects that petitioners were not issued a notice of determination concerning collection action or a notice of final determination for interest abatement claim for the taxable year 2018. As a result, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over any alleged notice of determination concerning collection action or notice of final determination for interest abatement through the vehicle of the instant deficiency proceeding for petitioners' 2018 tax year. To the contrary, petitioners' apparently expansive view of the Court's authority fails to comport with the limited nature of the jurisdiction set forth in the statutory parameters and jurisprudence detailed above.
In conclusion then, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioners' situation and understands the challenges of the circumstances faced and the good faith efforts made, the Court on the present record lacks jurisdiction in this case to review any action (or inaction) by respondent in regard to an alleged notice of determination concerning collection action or a notice of final determination for interest abatement claim for 2018. Congress has granted the Tax Court no authority to afford any remedy as to such notices in the circumstances evidenced by this proceeding, regardless of the merits of petitioner's complaints.
Accordingly, the premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Petitioners' Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action Allegation and Notice of Final Determination for Interest Abatement is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to any alleged notice of determination concerning collection action or a notice of final determination for interest abatement claim. References to such notices in the petition are deemed stricken. The notice of deficiency for 2018 remains before the Court.