Opinion
31915-21S
02-21-2023
MONIQUEA SHENAE JOHNSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On November 27, 2021, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case, seeking review with respect to her 2014, 2018, 2019, and 2021 tax years. On January 6, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, which was supplemented by respondent's First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed on December 14, 2022. In his motion, as supplemented, respondent asserts that: (1) as to tax years 2014 and 2019, the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code, and (2) as to tax years 2014, 2018, 2019, and 2021, respondent has made no other determination (or failed to make any determination within a statutorily prescribed time period) that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Although the Court provided petitioner the opportunity to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion, petitioner has not done so.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 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 the timely filing of a petition 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). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); 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 (after the taxpayer has properly requested a collection due process hearing) under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 and the filing by the taxpayer of a petition concerning that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 38 (2005); I.R.C. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 2
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.
The record in this case establishes that, as to the notices of deficiency issued to petitioner for tax years 2014 and 2019, the petition was not timely filed. Furthermore, petitioner has not demonstrated that respondent has made any other determination (or failed to make any determination within a statutorily required time period) that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as to her 2014, 2018, 2019, and 2021 tax years. Accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. However, although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, if she wishes petitioner may continue to pursue an administrative resolution of petitioner's tax liability directly with the IRS.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, as supplemented, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.