Opinion
3506-23
08-16-2023
STEVEN O. NELSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
KATHLEEN KERRIGAN CHIEF JUDGE
The Petition in the above-docketed matter seeks review of a purported notice of deficiency for tax year 2022. However, no notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court is attached to the Petition.
On April 26, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Motion to Dismiss) on the ground that no notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court was issued to petitioner for tax year 2022. On May 11, 2023, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (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).
In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, our jurisdiction depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. See I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213; Rule 13(a) and (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082, 1092-05 (9th Cir. 2020); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C., slip op. at 14 (Nov. 29, 2022); 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 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination (after the taxpayer has properly requested and received a collection due process hearing) under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 and the filing by the taxpayer of a petition concerning that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 38 (2005); I.R.C. §§ 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Other 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.
In his Objection, petitioner asserts that respondent issued him a notice of deficiency for tax year 2022. Petitioner further alleges that the IRS (1) improperly applied stimulus payments to his purported deficiency for that year and (2) has not answered his inquiries about those payments. However, petitioner did not attach a copy of the 2022 notice of deficiency to his Objection. As stated above, petitioner bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over this case. Because petitioner has not produced a notice of deficiency or other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion to Dismiss is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.