Opinion
28741-21S
05-04-2023
BEHROOZ KAMGAR-PARSI, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed April 18, 2022. Therein, respondent maintains that no notice of deficiency or notice of determination has been issued to petitioner for the taxable years 2015 through 2020 that would permit him to invoke the Court's jurisdiction in the above-docketed matter. Petitioner opposes the granting of the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Although a notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner for the taxable year 2016, the time for filing a petition for redetermination as to that notice expired more than two years before the filing of the Petition in this matter.
On August 16, 2021, the Court received and filed the Petition to commence this case. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination of any sort is attached thereto, and a fair reading of the Petition does not identify any basis for the Court's jurisdiction in this matter. The Petition does not comply with the form and content requirements of Rule 34.
Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times.
In the Petition, petitioner states that he "hereby petitions for a determination that the Commissioners of the Internal Revenue Service have not given him credit for his voluntary federal income tax withholdings from his Social Security benefits in [the] 2015 and 2016 Tax years." Additionally, petitioner requests that the Court order the Internal Revenue Service to (1) reduce his income tax withholdings; (2) stop all tax levies and garnishments; (3) provide a credit for income tax withheld from his Social Security benefits; (4) remove all penalties and interest "for every year since 2015"; (5) adjust his tax accounts; and (6) "determine the accurate final figure as [to] who owes who what."
By Order served April 19, 2022, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion to Dismiss. On May 16, 2022, petitioner filed a "Request to Dismiss Respondent's Motion to Dismiss." Therein, petitioner asserts that he has received "countless flawed and ridiculous notices." However, no notice of deficiency or notice of determination of any sort is attached thereto.
Thereafter, on May 1, 2023, the Court received and filed a Letter by petitioner dated April 22, 2023. Therein, petitioner requests that "the Court * * * order [the] IRS to correct * * * two problems" described in the letter and "CANCEL[] ITS NOTICE, CP11 OF MARCH 27, 2023 REGARDING TAX YEAR 2020." Attached to the Letter is one page of apparent IRS Notice CP11 dated March 27, 2023, advising petitioner of an alleged computational error on his Federal income tax return for the taxable year 2020. The attached IRS Notice CP11 does not set forth any determination that would confer jurisdiction on this Court.
Petitioner asserts in his letter (1) that, because the IRS has overlooked certain payments he has submitted for the taxable year 2019, his refund for the taxable year 2021 is less than it should be, and (2) that the IRS is withholding too much tax from his salary.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. See § 7442; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C., slip op. at 11 (Nov. 29, 2022). Where, as here, this Court's jurisdiction is duly challenged, our jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown by the party seeking to invoke that jurisdiction. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975). To meet this burden, the party "must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270.
Because petitioner, having had notice of respondent's specific jurisdictional allegations and an opportunity to respond, has failed to produce any notice of deficiency or notice of determination relating to the taxable years in question that would provide a basis for the Petition that he filed with this Court, he has failed to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction in this matter. For that matter, we are satisfied on this record that no such basis for our jurisdiction exists. That being so, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.