Opinion
785-21
01-26-2022
Vickie Lynn Morton & Mark Robert Humphrey Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER
Maurice B. Foley, Chief Judge
On February 20, 2021, petitioners filed the petition to commence this case, seeking review of a notice of deficiency issued to petitioner Vickie Lynn Morton for her 2017 tax year. On December 21, 2021, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing the parties to show cause why so much of this case relating to Mark Robert Humphrey should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the notice of deficiency upon which this case is based was not issued to Mr. Humphrey.
This 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). Likewise, in a case seeking review of certain collection activity of the IRS, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code 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. 492, 498 (2000); 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.
On January 13, 2022, petitioners filed a response to the Court's Order to Show Cause. In their response, while petitioners acknowledge that no notice of deficiency for tax year 2017 was issued to Mr. Humphrey, they also state their view that Mr. Humphrey may be a necessary party in this case because petitioners filed a joint return for tax year 2017. On January 25, 2022, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to Mark Robert Humphrey on the ground that no notice of deficiency or notice of determination was issued to Mark Robert Humphrey that would permit him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as to his 2017 tax year.
The record establishes that petitioners have not produced or otherwise demonstrated that Mark Robert Humphrey was issued any notice of deficiency or notice of determination that would confer jurisdiction on this Court as to his 2017 tax year. Accordingly, as discussed above, we lack jurisdiction as to Mr. Humphrey, and we are therefore obliged to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction so much of this case relating to petitioner Mr. Humphrey.
In view of the foregoing and upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause is made absolute. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced motion is granted in that so much of this case relating to petitioner Mark Robert Humphrey is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that the caption of this case is amended to read: "Vickie Lynn Morton, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent".