Opinion
34425-21
02-22-2022
Randall Jennette Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge.
On November 1, 2021, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case, in which he appears to raise issues related to his 2012 and 2019 tax years. Petitioner did not attach to his petition any notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. On January 4, 2022, petitioner filed a motion for default judgment.
On January 7, 2022, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that petitioner has not been issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Specifically, respondent contends that (1) as to a notice of determination concerning collection action for tax year 2012, such notice was previously litigated by petitioner in his case at Docket No. 12713-16L and that case is now closed; and (2) as to a notice of deficiency for tax years 2012 and 2019 and a notice of determination for tax year 2019, no such notices have been issued to petitioner.
On January 24, 2022, petitioner filed an objection to motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter, on January 26, 2022, petitioner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a first supplement to objection to motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tax 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 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 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 with regard to certain collection activity under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330 depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals. I.R.C. secs. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (2000). An essential prerequisite 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 I.R.C. section 6320(a) or 6330(a) and calculated with reference to an underlying notice of Federal tax lien filing, notice of intent to levy, or analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under I.R.C. section 6330(f) (e.g., a notice of levy on your State tax refund and notice of your right to a hearing).
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 a request for relief from joint and several liability, a notice of final determination not to abate interest, a determination of worker classification, a notice of determination 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. section 6015, 6404(h), 7436, 7623, or 7345, respectively, appear to be involved in this case.
In petitioner's objection to respondent's motion to dismiss, as supplemented, petitioner argues the merits of his case but fails to address respondent's jurisdictional allegations. However, if this Court lacks jurisdiction, we cannot reach the merits of a case.
The record reflects that petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that, as of the time the petition was filed, petitioner was issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court with respect to the tax years placed at issue in this case by petitioner. Accordingly, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's motion for default judgment and motion for judgment on the pleadings are denied.