Opinion
1044-24
08-15-2024
RAGHUVIR MADHABHAI LAVARI & JIGNASA R. LAVARI, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
Pending before the Court in this case is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action, filed February 29, 2024. By the Motion, respondent moves that this case, insofar as it relates to a notice of determination concerning collection action for the taxable years 2013 and 2014, be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no such notice has been issued to petitioners. Petitioners oppose the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant the Motion.
Background
On January 17, 2024, the Court received and filed the Petition to commence this case. Among other things, the Petition indicates that petitioners seek to invoke our collection due process (CDP) jurisdiction in response to a notice of determination concerning collection action purportedly issued to them for the taxable years 2013 and 2014. However, no notice of determination concerning collection action is attached to the Petition.
The Petition also indicates that petitioners seek to invoke our deficiency jurisdiction in response to a notice of deficiency that appears to have been issued to them for the taxable years 2013 and 2014. See infra p. 2 n.2.
In response to the Petition, respondent filed the Motion pending before the Court. By Order served March 1, 2024, the Court directed petitioners to file an objection, if any, to that Motion.
On March 25, 2024, petitioners electronically filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, attaching thereto a miscellany of documents, but no notice of determination concerning collection action. To date, the record in this case contains no notice of determination concerning collection action.
Among the documents attached to petitioners' Opposition is a copy of a notice of deficiency that appears to have been issued to petitioners for the taxable years 2013 and 2014.
Discussion
Like all federal courts, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 1, 11 (2021). We may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See § 7442; Ramey, 156 T.C. at 11. 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.
All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Our jurisdiction in the CDP context depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination. See §§ 6320(c), 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b); Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8 (2004), aff'd, 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000). It follows that when a valid notice of determination has not been issued to the taxpayer, we are obliged to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. See Offiler, 114 T.C. at 498; Mighty v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-44, slip op. at *2 n.2.
After receiving notice of respondent's jurisdictional allegations and being afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond, petitioners have failed to establish that they have been issued a notice of determination concerning collection action, as purported in the Petition. Consequently, petitioners have failed to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our CDP jurisdiction, and we must grant respondent's Motion. That being so, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion is granted, and so much of this case relating to a notice of determination concerning collection action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All references in the Petition to such a notice are deemed stricken.