Opinion
22901-22
07-17-2023
MICHAEL S. LEAR, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
On October 17, 2022, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case. The petition indicates that petitioner seeks review of a purported notice of deficiency and notice of determination concerning collection action with respect to his 2020, 2021, and 2022 tax years. The petition states in relevant part: "I have not received my $600 stimulus. I have received notices that I would receive my payment but months later I still have not received my money." Petitioner attached to the petition letters from the United States Department of the Treasury and the Commonwealth of Kentucky indicating that his payment had been intercepted to be applied to his delinquent child support obligation. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court is attached to the petition.
On December 13, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, asserting that this case should be dismissed on the grounds that no notice of deficiency or notice of determination concerning collection action was issued, nor has respondent made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioner's 2020, 2021, and 2022 tax years. On January 20, 2023, petitioner filed a Motion to Overrule Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Therein petitioner argues that a Notice CP13 that he was issued informing him that an error was corrected on his 2021 income tax return that resulted in a change to his recovery rebate credits qualifies as a notice of deficiency or a notice of determination concerning collection action that would permit him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
Like all federal courts, the Tax 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 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 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; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). Similarly, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination with regard to certain collection activity under Internal Revenue Code (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 Independent Office of Appeals after being issued 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.
I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related disputes. As discussed above, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. Here, petitioner has failed to produce or otherwise demonstrate that he was issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination concerning collection action, or that respondent made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court with respect to his 2020, 2021, and 2022 tax years. Contrary to petitioner's assertions, a Notice CP13 is not a notice of deficiency or a notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Accordingly, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Overrule Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is denied. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.