Opinion
9059-24S
08-15-2024
ESTATE OF MARTIN M. KALICK, SR., DECEASED, ANDREW P. KALICK, EXECUTOR, Petitioner(s) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.
The Petition to commence this case was filed on May 28, 2024. Petitioner indicates that he seeks review of a purported notice of determination concerning collection action issued for petitioner's 2019 tax year. While petitioner attached to the Petition a copy of a Notice CP 503, no notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court was provided by petitioner.
On July 19, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the grounds that no notice of deficiency nor notice of determination concerning collection action was issued to petitioner, nor has respondent made any other determination, as to petitioner's 2019 tax year that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. On August 13, 2024, petitioner filed a Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, opposing respondent's motion to dismiss.
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. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 6213(a); 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 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 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 under section 6015 (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.
In his response to the motion to dismiss, petitioner discusses the merits of this case and argues that this Court properly has jurisdiction. However, contrary to petitioner's understanding, I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related issues. As discussed above, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. A Notice CP 503 is not a type of notice which confers jurisdiction on this Court. Accordingly, as petitioner has not produced any notice of deficiency or notice of determination concerning collection action, nor demonstrated that respondent has made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioner's 2019 tax year, this case must be dismissed for lack jurisdiction.
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.