Opinion
1435-21
06-28-2021
Antonina Khramova Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
MAURICE B. FOLEY, CHIEF JUDGE
Petitioner filed the petition to commence this case on January 11, 2021, seeking review of a purported notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2018 tax year. Petitioner attached to the petition a copy of a Notice CP503, which states "Second reminder: You have unpaid taxes for 2018". On May 4, 2021, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency or notice of determination was issued to petitioner for tax year 2018 that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. On May 18, 2021, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and, on May 21, 2021, also filed a supplement to that objection.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In a case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the issuance by the Commissioner of a valid notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).
Similarly, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination concerning collection action under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330 depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals. I.R.C. secs. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (2000). An essential prerequisite to the issuance of a notice of determination is the requirement that a taxpayer have requested a hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals within the 30-day period specified in I.R.C. section 6320(a) or 6330(a) and calculated with reference to an underlying notice of Federal tax lien filing, notice of intent to levy, or analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under I.R.C. section 6330(f) (e.g., a notice of levy on your State tax refund and notice of your right to a hearing).
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 a request for relief from joint and several liability, a notice of final determination not to abate interest, a determination of worker classification, a notice of determination concerning whistleblower action, and a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent Federal tax debt to the Department of State. No pertinent claims involving I.R.C. section 6015, 6404(h), 7436, 7623, or 7345, respectively, appear to be involved in this case.
Petitioner's objection, as supplemented, does not address respondent's jurisdictional allegations. Nor has petitioner produced or otherwise demonstrated that petitioner has been issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Nonetheless, petitioner states that petitioner objects to the dismissal of this case for lack of jurisdiction and appears to seek a ruling on the merits of the case in spite of the jurisdictional defects. However, unless this Court has jurisdiction, we cannot reach the merits of the case.
Based on the foregoing, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, petitioner's filings suggest that petitioner seeks a refund of several thousand dollars that petitioner paid with respect to tax year 2018 as the result of receiving an IRS notice that petitioner believes was issued in error. In such circumstances, taxpayers may file a claim for refund with the IRS. If that claim is denied, taxpayers generally have two years within which to file a lawsuit following if the claim for refund is disallowed. See I.R.C. sec. 6532(a)(1). However, the Tax Court is not the proper court in which to file such an action. A taxpayer may seek a judicial remedy for wrongful denial of refund claims-i.e., a refund suit in compliance with Internal Revenue Code sections 6532(a)(1) and 7422(a)-either in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1491(a)(1), or in Federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346(a)(1). Those statutes do not confer refund jurisdiction on the Tax Court. Accordingly, this Court cannot and does not decide whether petitioner is entitled to a refund for petitioner's 2018 tax year.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.