Opinion
8439-22S
09-30-2022
DAVID CHARLES MORGAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On April 11, 2022, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case. Petitioner indicates in the petition that he seeks the payment of economic impact payments he is owed with respect to his 2020 tax year. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court is attached to the petition.
On June 13, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the grounds that no notice of deficiency or notice of determination with respect to petitioner's 2020 tax year was issued to petitioner that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. After respondent's motion to dismiss was filed, on September 27, 2022, petitioner filed a Letter Dated September 20, 2022.
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 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; 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 generally depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 and the timely filing by the taxpayer of a petition within 30 days of that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C.36, 38 (2005); I.R.C. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Other types of 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 (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. No pertinent claims involving I.R.C. sections 6015, 6404(h), 7436, 7623, or 7345, respectively, appear to be involved in this case.
In his letter filed after the filing of respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner does not address respondent's jurisdictional allegations. Rather, petitioner explains the difficulties he has encountered in trying to obtain his economic stimulus payments and asserts that he has been the victim of identity fraud. However, 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 or otherwise demonstrated that he was issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
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.