Opinion
37935-21
09-16-2022
PARVIZ LAVI, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
On September 7, 2021, the Court received from petitioner a letter, which was filed as the petition to commence this case in order to protect the taxpayer's interests to the extent possible. On May 18, 2022, petitioner filed a first amended petition, indicating therein that he seeks review with respect to his 1978, 1979, and 1980 tax years. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioner's 1978, 1979, and 1980 tax years is attached to the petition or the first amended petition. On July 1, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the ground that no notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court was issued to petitioner for tax years 1978, 1979, and 1980. On November 22, 2021, petitioner filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
The Tax 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). Similarly, in a case seeking review of certain IRS collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction generally depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 and the timely filing by the taxpayer of a petition within 30 days of that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 38 (2005); I.R.C. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
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 relief from joint and several liability (or failure of IRS to make determination within 6 months after election or request for relief), a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim (or failure of IRS to make final determination within 180 days after claim for abatement), a notice of determination of worker classification, a notice of determination under section 7623 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. sections 6015, 6404(h), 7436, 7623, or 7345, respectively, appear to be involved in this case.
The record reflects that petitioner previously litigated his 1978 tax year in a case at Docket No. 20736-87. A decision was entered in that case on July 7, 1992. Petitioner also previously litigated his 1979 and 1980 tax years at Docket No. 8023-86. A decision was entered in Docket No. 8023-86 on March 16, 1998, and appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed the Tax Court's decision.
Petitioner, apparently still dissatisfied with the results in those two cases, appears to have filed this case in an attempt to make a collateral attack on the Court's decisions in Docket Nos. 8023-86 and 20736-87. In his opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner argues that this Court has jurisdiction of this case under principles of equitable estoppel and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, which provides that under certain circumstances a party may obtain relief from a court's final judgment or order.
However, based upon the above discussion concerning the Court's jurisdiction, we disagree. Petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that he has been issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case as to petitioner's 1978, 1979, and 1980 tax years. We further note that this case is duplicative of petitioner's cases at Docket Nos. 8023-86 and 20736-87 inasmuch as petitioner seeks review in this case of the same tax years that were before the Court in those cases. Accordingly, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. If petitioner wishes to seek relief from the Court's decisions in Docket Nos. 8023-86 and/or 20736-87, petitioner is free file an appropriate motion in those cases.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.