Opinion
26239-21
01-21-2022
Maria Antonette Latham Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
On July 26, 2021, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case, seeking review of a purported notice of deficiency and purported notice of determination concerning collection action with respect to her 2016 tax year. On December 2, 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 her 2016 tax year that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. On January 4, 2022, petitioner filed an objection to respondent's motion to dismiss. Thereafter, on January 18, 2022, petitioner filed a motion for default judgment.
This 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 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; Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). Likewise, in a case seeking review of certain collection activity of the IRS, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code section 6320 or 6330 and the timely filing by the taxpayer of a petition within 30 days of that IRS determination (after the taxpayer has properly filed with the IRS a request for collection due process hearing) . Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 492, 498 (2000); I.R.C. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Petitioner's objection to respondent's motion to dismiss does not address respondent's jurisdictional allegations. Rather, petitioner provides details of her dispute with the IRS over an income tax return petitioner filed for tax year 2016 that the IRS apparently deemed frivolous. Petitioner has failed to identify or provide any specific notice upon which jurisdiction in this case could be based. Accordingly, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
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. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's motion for default judgment is denied.