Opinion
920-21S
06-08-2022
PETER M. MACNAMARA & MARIE T. VENTO, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On April 20, 2021, respondent filed in the above-docketed case a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Peter M. MacNamara, on the ground that no statutory notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, had been sent to petitioner Peter M. MacNamara with respect to the taxable year 2017, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to Peter M. MacNamara tax year 2017 that would confer jurisdiction on this Court.
This 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 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; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).
Petitioners were served with a copy of respondent's motion to dismiss and, on May 21, 2021, filed a response in objection. A document in the nature of a supplement to the response (albeit improperly titled) then followed on June 30, 2021. In those submissions, petitioners did not deny the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion and did not suggest the existence of any notice of deficiency or other relevant determination issued to Peter M. MacNamara. Rather, the response, as supplemented, centered on an overarching desire to proceed on the basis of joint filing status and to have the taxes computed on a joint basis. To buttress petitioners' position, the response referenced circumstances such as having been married at all relevant times and having filed joint returns. Petitioners particularly highlighted multiple attempts to send their 2017 return and delayed processing thereof. Conversely, the record would seem to reflect that because petitioners had initially failed to file timely a 2017 tax return, the notice of deficiency had been based solely on analysis of Marie T. Vento's gross income, without taking into account, inter alia, joint marital status and various expenses and deductions.
Unfortunately, while the Court may be sympathetic to petitioners' situation, suffice it to say that none of petitioners' apparent positions or contentions can provide a basis in these circumstances to allow Peter M. MacNamara to remain a litigant in this case. Jurisdiction strictly pursuant to the governing statutes is fundamental in this Court of law. It is only the existence of a notice issued to a taxpayer, not his or her status as married to or filing joint returns with another taxpayer, that permits participation as a named party in a Tax Court proceeding. Whether this case might eventually be settled between the parties in a manner largely consistent with joint filing status remains an open question (although potentially supported by material attached to their June 30, 2021, supplement) but does not alter the fact that no notice was issued to Peter M. MacNamara to serve as his "ticket to the Tax Court".
Accordingly, the record in this case fails to establish that a notice of deficiency or any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court was sent to Peter M. MacNamara with respect to the taxable year 2017. This case must therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to Peter M. MacNamara.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that petitioners' document filed June 30, 2021, shall be recharacterized as a First Supplement to Response to Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Peter M. MacNamara. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Peter M. MacNamara is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to Peter M. MacNamara. It is further
ORDERED that the caption of this case is amended to read "Marie T. Vento, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent".