Opinion
11421-23
09-12-2024
CURTIS B. LEISS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On April 5, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Impose Penalty Under I.R.C. Section 6673(a). By Order served April 9, 2024, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion. On May 6, 2024, the Court received and filed petitioner's Response. The Response consists of a miscellany of documents which-aside from a copy of the Court's Order served April 9, 2024-bear no discernable relevance to respondent's Motion or to the immediate matter before the Court, namely, whether we have jurisdiction to hear this case. In any event, we will deem petitioner to have timely objected to the granting of respondent's Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must nevertheless grant the Motion to the extent set forth below.
Unless otherwise indicated, 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.
Background
On July 13, 2023, the Court received and filed an assortment of documents submitted by petitioner as an imperfect Petition to commence this case. No notice of deficiency, nor any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, was among those documents. Moreover, the nature of the relief sought by petitioner, if any, was not clear from the submission. In view of the foregoing, and the fact that the submission did not comply with the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure as to the form and content of a proper petition, the Court directed petitioner to file a proper amended petition.
On August 8, 2023, the Court received and filed petitioner's First Amended Petition. Therein, petitioner indicated that he sought review of a notice of deficiency and notice of determination of worker classification for the taxable years 2019 and/or 2023. However, no such notice was attached thereto, and a fair reading of the First Amended Petition (including the various documents that were so attached) still failed to reveal the nature of the relief, if any, that petitioner may be seeking in this case.
Respondent thereafter filed the Motion to Dismiss pending before the Court, asserting that no notice of deficiency, notice of determination of worker classification, or other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case has been issued to petitioner for the taxable years 2019 and/or 2023. As noted above, the documents filed as petitioner's Response to respondent's Motion to Dismiss bear no discernible relevance to the jurisdiction question before the Court; to be sure, no notice of deficiency, notice of determination of worker classification, or other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction is among them. To date, no notice of deficiency, notice of determination of worker classification, or other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court appears in the record of this case.
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.
In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, our jurisdiction depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency. See §§ 6212, 6213; Rule 13(a); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 139-40 (2022). Indeed, because the issuance of a notice of deficiency is a prerequisite to invoking this Court's deficiency jurisdiction, the notice is often called the taxpayer's "ticket to the Tax Court." Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).
Our jurisdiction under section 7436(a) generally allows the Court to determine (1) whether an individual providing services to a principal is that principal's employee for purposes of subtitle C; (2) whether the principal, if an employer, is entitled to relief under section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978; and (3) if the individual providing services is an employee, the proper amounts of employment taxes which relate to the Commissioner's determination concerning worker classification. § 7436(a); SECC Corp. v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. 225, 230 (2014). The Commissioner's "determination" of worker classification provides the predicate for our jurisdiction under section 7436(a). SECC Corp., 142 T.C. at 231.
After receiving notice of respondent's jurisdictional allegations and being afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond, petitioner has failed to establish that he has been issued a notice of deficiency, notice of determination of worker classification, or any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case. Moreover, our own review of the record reveals no indication that respondent has acted-or failed to act-in any manner that could support the Court's jurisdiction in this case. Consequently, petitioner has failed to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction, and we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss also requests that the Court impose a penalty under section 6673(a) in this case. If it appears to the Court that a taxpayer has advanced a frivolous or groundless position in a case commenced in this Court, the Court can order the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed $25,000. See § 6673(a)(1); Williams v. Commissioner, 151 T.C. 1, 5-6 (2018). Among other things, respondent argues that such a penalty is appropriate here because petitioner has advanced frivolous and groundless positions in this case and in a previous case before this Court at Docket No. 16613-22. As respondent notes, the Court declined in petitioner's previous case to impose a penalty but admonished petitioner that such a penalty may be imposed in future cases commenced by petitioner advancing frivolous and groundless positions. We agree with respondent that the positions advanced by petitioner in this case are frivolous and groundless but will decline to impose a penalty under section 6673(a) at this time. Nonetheless, petitioner is again admonished that that future submissions advancing a frivolous or groundless position may result in the imposition of such a penalty.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion to Dismiss is granted in that this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the above-stated grounds. It is further
ORDERED that all other requests for relief in respondent's Motion to Dismiss are denied. It is further
ORDERED that all other motions pending in this case are moot.