Opinion
1288-24L
04-11-2024
DANA MORRIS-BLAKE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
Pending before the Court in this case is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 19, 2024. Therein respondent moves that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency or notice of determination concerning collection action has been sent to petitioner with respect to tax years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, or 2021, nor has respondent made any other determination as to those years that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Petitioner opposes the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
On January 26, 2024, petitioner filed the Petition in the above-docketed matter, disputing a notice of deficiency and a notice of determination concerning collection action for tax years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. Petitioner did not attach to the Petition a copy of any of these notices. Instead, petitioner attached a Letter 2272C dated December 29, 2023, which notified petitioner that the IRS could not, without additional financial information, consider a request petitioner had submitted regarding tax years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. Petitioner generally alleges that the IRS erred in rescinding installment agreements and/or currently not collectible designations for these years.
As noted above, on March 19, 2024, respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss pending before the Court. By Order served March 20, 2024, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to the Motion. On April 10, 2024, petitioner filed an Objection. To date, no notice of deficiency, notice of determination concerning collection action, or any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case appears in the record.
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See I.R.C. § 7442; Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 1, 11 (2021). I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters. Where, as here, this Court's jurisdiction is duly challenged, 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); Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975). To meet this burden, the party "must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270.
In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, our jurisdiction depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency. See §§ 6212, 6213; Rule 13(a); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 139-40 (2022). Similarly, our jurisdiction in the collection due process context depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination concerning collection action. See §§ 6320(c), 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b); Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8 (2004), aff 'd, 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000).
To date, petitioner has failed to establish that petitioner has been issued a notice of deficiency, notice of determination concerning collection action, or any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case. Consequently, petitioner has failed to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction, and we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270; see also Garland v. Commissioner, 786 Fed.Appx. 240 (11th Cir. 2019) (affirming an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where the taxpayers had failed to produce a notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or any other determination pertaining to the taxable years raised in the petition).
Upon due consideration, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.