Opinion
23498-22
05-04-2023
PHILIP MACHAR MEI, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.
No notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court was attached to the petition filed October 24, 2022. Respondent filed, and later supplemented, a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that no notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court in this case was issued to petitioner. Petitioner filed an objection to the motion on April 19, 2023, but no notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court in this case was attached to the objection.
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). The correspondence sent to petitioner by the Internal Revenue Service is not the type of document that confers jurisdiction upon the Court. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth in respondent's motion as supplemented, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion as supplemented is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.