Opinion
10489-24S
09-25-2024
CYNTHIA MCKEON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
The Petition to commence this case was filed on June 25, 2024. Petitioner indicates therein that she seeks review of a purported notice of deficiency issued for her 2019 tax year. However, no notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court is attached to the Petition.
On August 15, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the grounds that no notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner, nor has respondent made any other determination, as to petitioner's 2019 tax year that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. On September 4, 2024, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Thereafter, on September 24, 2024, petitioner supplemented her objection to the motion to dismiss by filing a document titled Exhibit(s).
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. We may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In addition, jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a taxpayer invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the taxpayer's case. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960).
In a deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction generally 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; Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 6213(a); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). Similarly, 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 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); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Other IRS notices which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, are a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 (or failure of IRS to make determination within 6 months after election or request for relief), a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim (or failure of IRS to make final determination within 180 days after claim for abatement), a notice of determination of worker classification, a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action, and a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent federal tax debt to the Department of State.
Attached to petitioner's supplement to her objection to respondent's motion to dismiss are a number of IRS letters and notices sent to petitioner. Petitioner identifies one of them--a notice issued March 25, 2024--as the notice of deficiency on which this case is based. However, that document is not a notice of deficiency, rather it is a Notice CP 49, which informed petitioner that the IRS was applying her 2023 refund to a balance owed for her 2019 tax year. Petitioner also asserts in her objection, as supplemented, that I.R.C. section 7442 provides the Court with jurisdiction of this case. However, contrary to petitioner's understanding, I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters. As discussed above, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. As petitioner has not produced any notice of deficiency, nor demonstrated that respondent has made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioner's 2019, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack jurisdiction. Petitioner, however, is free to continue to pursue an administrative resolution directly with the IRS concerning her 2019 tax liability.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Exhibit(s), filed September 24, 2024, is recharacterized as a First Supplement to Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.