Opinion
10639-24
11-13-2024
MAURICIO LOPEZ, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On June 26, 2024, petitioner filed the Petition to commence this case, indicating therein that he seeks review of a notice of determination concerning collection action issued for his 2012 tax year. However, the attachment to the Petition suggests that petitioner actually disputes a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 issued for his 2012 tax year.
On September 10, 2024, the Commissioner (respondent) filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. On September 27, 2024, respondent filed a First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. As grounds for his motion, as supplemented, respondent asserts that: (1) as to a notice of determination concerning collection action, no such notice was issued to petitioner sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioner's 2012 tax year, and (2) as to a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 issued for petitioner's 2012 tax year, the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code. Although the Court provided petitioner with an opportunity to object to the granting of respondent's motion, as supplemented, the Court has received no response from petitioner.
In a case seeking review of certain IRS collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 (after petitioner has requested and received a collection due process hearing following the issuance of a notice of filing of federal tax lien, a final notice of intent to levy, or an analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under I.R.C. section 6330(f), such as a notice of levy on your State tax refund and notice of your right to a hearing) and the filing by the taxpayer of a Petition concerning that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 38 (2005); I.R.C. §§ 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1).
Furthermore, with respect to a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. I.R.C. section 6015(e)(1) specifically provides that the petition, to be timely, must be filed within 90 days of the issuance of the notice of determination. "The 90-day filing deadline of section 6015(e) (1)(A) is jurisdictional." Frutiger v. Commissioner, No. 31153-21, 162 T.C., slip op. at 12 (Mar. 11, 2024). Furthermore, the Court has no authority to extend this 90-day period. See id.; Pollack v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 21, 32 (2009) ("[S]ection 6015(e)(1) (A)'s 90-day limit is jurisdictional and therefore doesn't allow for equitable tolling . . . .").
Here, petitioner has not demonstrated that respondent issued any notice of determination concerning collection action as to petitioner's 2012 tax year. In addition, the record establishes that, as to the notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 issued for petitioner's 2012 tax year, the Petition was not timely filed. Accordingly, there appears to be no basis on which the Court may exercise jurisdiction in this case.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, as supplemented, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.