Opinion
7090-22
03-30-2023
RICHARD F. MARTENS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On May 27, 2022, respondent filed in the above-docketed case a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the grounds: (1) As to 2016, that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) or 7502 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.); and (2) as to 2015, 2018, and 2019, that no notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a), I.R.C., to form the basis for a petition to this Court, had been sent to petitioner with respect to the 2015, 2018, and 2019 tax years, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to such tax years that would confer jurisdiction on the Court, as of the time the petition herein was filed. Although the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner has failed to do so.
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). The jurisdiction of the Court in a deficiency case also depends in part on the timely filing of a petition by 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); Brown v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 215, 220 (1982). In this regard, section 6213(a), I.R.C., provides that the petition must be filed with the Court within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). The Court has no authority to extend this 90-day (or 150-day) period. Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). However, a petition shall be treated as timely filed if it is filed on or before the last date specified in such notice for the filing of a Tax Court petition (but after issuance), a provision which becomes relevant where that date is later than the date computed with reference to the mailing date. Sec. 6213(a), I.R.C. Likewise, if the conditions of section 7502, I.R.C., are satisfied, a petition which is timely mailed may be treated as having been timely filed.
Similarly, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination concerning collection action under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C., depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C. Secs. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), I.R.C.; Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (2000). A condition precedent to the issuance of a notice of determination is the requirement that a taxpayer have requested a hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals in reference to an underlying Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320, Final Notice of Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (or the equivalent Notice CP90, Intent to seize your assets and notice of your right to a hearing, depending on the version of the form used), or analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under section 6330(f), I.R.C. (e.g., a Notice of Levy on Your State Tax Refund and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing).
Other types of IRS notice which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, include a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief From Joint and Several Liability, a Notice of Final Determination Not To Abate Interest, a Notice of Determination of Worker Classification, Notice of Certification of Your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt to the State Department, or a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Whistleblower Action. No pertinent claims involving section 6015, 6404(h), 7436, 7345, or 7623, I.R.C., respectively, have been implicated here. Likewise absent is any suggestion that the perquisites have been met to support one of the statutorily described declaratory judgment actions that may be undertaken by the Court.
Petitioner was served with a copy of respondent's motion to dismiss and, on March 27, 2023, filed an objection. Therein, petitioner did not dispute the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion regarding timeliness and lack of relevant notices. Rather, that objection stated in its entirety: "I am filing a formal objection against lack of jurisdiction. The date on the award letter from the Disability Dept. shows that I was the custodial parent all those years. Reference the previous decision as validating I am the custodial parent." The earlier petition had emphasized the result in petitioner's favor in a prior case for the 2017 taxable year at Docket No. 9220-19S.
Hence, at this juncture, the Court has received from petitioner nothing that denies, or even appears to address, the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion. Instead, all correspondence received has focused exclusively on the substance of petitioner's case, essentially reiterating petitioner's stance that he may properly claim his children for tax purposes. His submissions have not addressed in any way the timeliness of the original petition as to 2016 or the lack of any notices of deficiency for 2015, 2018, and 2019.
Thus, the record at this juncture suggests that petitioner may have sought the assistance of the Court after having become frustrated with administrative actions by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and any attempts to work with the agency but that the petition here was not based upon or instigated by a specific IRS notice expressly providing petitioner with the right to contest a particular IRS determination in this Court. Suffice it to say that no IRS communication supplied or mentioned by petitioner to date, constitutes, or can substitute for, a notice of deficiency under section 6212, I.R.C., or a notice of determination issued pursuant to sections 6320 and/or 6330, I.R.C, or any other of the narrow class of specified determinations by the IRS that can open the door to the Tax Court, as of the date the petition was filed. Moreover, the expansive view of the Court's jurisdiction intimated in the objection clearly exceeds the bounds of the limited jurisdiction detailed above. Absent a specific statutory grant to the Court to address a particular notice or scenario, the Court has no general jurisdiction to consider and redress complaints simply because they may pertain to taxes. Stated otherwise, the Court is simply without authority to consider the propriety of any IRS activity (or inactivity) in absence of a determination to petitioner within the meaning of the statutes discussed herein and a timely petition.
In conclusion, the Court has no authority to extend that period provided by law for filing a petition "whatever the equities of a particular case may be and regardless of the cause for its not being filed within the required period." Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972). As a Court of limited jurisdiction, the Court is simply unable to offer any remedy or assistance when a petition is filed late. Unfortunately, governing law recognizes no reasonable cause or other applicable exception to the statutory deadline. Accordingly, since petitioner has failed to establish that the petition was mailed or filed within the required period with respect to the notice of deficiency for 2016, and has failed to establish the existence of any other determination by the IRS that could support this litigation as to 2015, 2018, or 2019, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court would, however, encourage petitioner to consider continuing to work administratively through the IRS, which, being entirely separate from the Tax Court, may yet be able to offer alternative avenues for relief.
In conclusion then, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioner's situation and understands the challenges of the circumstances faced and the good faith efforts made, the Court on the present record lacks jurisdiction in this case to review any action (or inaction) by respondent in regard to petitioner's taxes. Congress has granted the Tax Court no authority to afford any remedy in the circumstances evidenced by this proceeding, regardless of the merits of petitioner's complaints.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion To Proceed Remotely, filed May 10, 2022, is denied as moot.