Opinion
22944-22
04-11-2023
VANTHA KEM, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
Pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed December 6, 2022. Therein, respondent requests that this case be dismissed on the ground that no notice of deficiency, nor any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, has been issued to petitioner.
On January 9, 2023, petitioner filed an Objection to respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Thereafter, on February 6, 2023, respondent filed a Response to that Objection. On February 22, 2023, petitioner filed a Reply to respondent's Response. On March 24, 2023, respondent filed a First Supplement to his Response.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. See I.R.C. § 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). 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). To meet this burden, the party "must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." Ibid.
In the Petition, petitioner seeks redetermination of a deficiency purportedly set forth in a notice of deficiency dated July 29, 2022. However, no such notice is attached to the Petition. Instead, petitioner has attached a copy of an IRS Letter 96C dated July 29, 2022. Petitioner argues in the Petition that this Letter 96C should be treated "as a notice of deficiency on the grounds that the taxpayer was put on notice of a decrease in a refundable credit," namely, a $1,400 recovery rebate credit, for the taxable year 2021. Petitioner maintains that same argument in her Objection.
However, in her Reply, petitioner advises that, since the filing of the Petition she has been issued a refund for 2021 of $1,462.57, including the disputed $1,400 recovery rebate credit raised in the Petition. In his First Supplement to his Response, respondent confirms the issuance of the refund in question, attaching thereto a copy of petitioner's account transcript for 2021.
While it appears that the parties have resolved the underlying dispute, in a deficiency case, as here, our jurisdiction depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency. See Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022). Petitioner, after having been apprised of respondent's jurisdictional allegations, and given an opportunity to respond, has failed to establish that she has been issued any notice or determination that is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Consequently, petitioner has failed to carry her burden to "establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction," David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270, and we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for the reasons stated in that Motion.