Opinion
1306-24
06-21-2024
ERIN MORROW, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On May 8, 2024, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that there was no basis for petitioner to invoke the Court's jurisdiction as to a Notice of Final Determination for Full/Partial Disallowance of Interest Abatement Claim (or Failure of IRS to Make Final Determination Within 180 Days After Claim for Abatement), with respect to tax year 2023, or as to a Notice of Determination Under Section 7623 Concerning Whistleblower Action. Although the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner failed to do so.
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). Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters. 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 case based upon failure of the IRS to abate interest, jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on issuance of a determination by the IRS under that section or the failure by the IRS to issue such a determination within 180 days of the filing of a claim for interest abatement. Likewise, jurisdiction under I.R.C. section 7623(b)(4) is premised on a determination regarding an award to a whistleblower based on information provided by such individual to the Secretary.
As petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that petitioner has been issued any Notice of Final Determination for Full/Partial Disallowance of Interest Abatement Claim, or that respondent has failed to make a final determination within 180 days after a claim for abatement, as to petitioner's 2023 tax year, nor that petitioner has been issued a Notice of Determination Under Section 7623 Concerning Whistleblower Action that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.