Opinion
35074-21S
08-25-2022
STEVEN RAY MAYO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
Pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 18, 2022. Therein, respondent requests that this case be dismissed on the ground that no notice of determination concerning collection action has been issued to petitioner for the taxable year 2016, nor has respondent made any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for such year.
By Order served June 16, 2022, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion. On July 25, 2022, the Court received and filed an undated Letter by petitioner, wherein he states his objection to the granting of the Motion to Dismiss.
For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
In the Petition filed to commence this case on November 17, 2021, petitioner seeks review of a notice of determination concerning collection action purportedly issued to him for the taxable year 2016. However, no notice of determination concerning collection action, nor any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, is attached to the Petition. Instead, a partial copy of an apparent Internal Revenue Service Notice CP71A (Annual Reminder of Balance Due) dated November 1, 2021, and issued to petitioner for the taxable year 2016, is attached thereto.
Discussion
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. See I.R.C. § 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Where this Court's jurisdiction is duly challenged, as here, 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). To meet this burden, the party "must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." Ibid.
As noted above, in response to respondent's Motion to Dismiss, petitioner has filed a Letter. However, the Letter does not address the jurisdictional allegations in respondent's Motion, and no notice of determination concerning collection action, nor any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, is attached thereto. Rather, attached to the Letter is an apparent IRS Letter 2644C dated July 12, 2022, advising petitioner that his inquiry regarding his Federal income tax for the taxable year 2019 has been received, but that the IRS requires more time to provide him with a complete response. Even if the IRS Letter 2644C did pertain to petitioner's taxable year 2016, it would not be sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court in this case.
As the foregoing demonstrates, petitioner, after having been apprised of respondent's jurisdictional allegations, and given an opportunity to respond, has failed to establish that he has been issued any notice that is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Consequently, petitioner has failed to carry his burden to "establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction," ibid., and we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.