Opinion
5368-24
05-24-2024
REGINALD JONES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On April 2, 2024, the Petition was filed to commence this case. Therein petitioner appears to request the assistance of the Court in obtaining a tax refund for tax years 2019 and/or 2020. No notice of deficiency or other Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notices were attached to the Petition.
On April 25, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, asserting that this case should be dismissed on the ground that no notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner with respect to tax years 2019 and 2020, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner's 2019 and 2020 tax years that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. On May 21, 2024, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
Like all federal courts, 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 generally depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed Petition. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); 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 under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 (after petitioner has requested and received a collection due process hearing following the issuance of a notice of filing of federal tax lien and/or a final notice of intent to levy) 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. §§6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 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.
In his objection to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner focuses on the difficulties he has encountered in attempting to obtain a refund for various tax years and does not address respondent's jurisdictional allegations. Petitioner has not demonstrated, or argued, that he was issued any notice of deficiency for tax years 2019 and 2020, or that respondent has made, or failed to make, any other determination that would confer jurisdiction on this Court as to those years. Accordingly, respondent's above-referenced motion to dismiss must be granted.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.