Opinion
24966-22
07-18-2023
CHARLES E. MATHESON & MARY J. MATHESON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
The Petition in the above-docketed case seeks relief with respect to petitioners' 2021 tax year--in particular, an apparent request for an abatement of interest. However, petitioners did not attach to their Petition a notice of final determination not to abate interest or any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.
On January 20, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that respondent has not made any determination with respect to petitioners' 2021 tax year that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Although petitioners filed a Letter responding to respondent's Motion on June 28, 2023, they did not directly contest respondent's jurisdictional allegations.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. In a deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Rsch. 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). 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). Similarly, in a case based on a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim, our jurisdiction depends in part on the issuance of a final determination by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6404, or by the IRS' failure to issue a final determination within 180 days after the filing of a claim for interest abatement. See I.R.C. § 6404(h).
Petitioners recount in their Letter attempts to resolve their issue with the IRS by phone. However, they have not provided a copy of a notice of deficiency, a notice of final determination not to abate interest, or any other notice that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Nor have petitioners shown that they filed with the IRS a claim for interest abatement with respect to which the IRS failed to make a final determination within 180 days. Because no notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court has been sent to petitioners, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In conclusion then, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioners' 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 petitioners' 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 petitioners' complaints. However, although petitioners may not prosecute this case in this Court, they may still pursue an administrative resolution of the 2021 tax liability directly with the IRS.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.