Opinion
7640-22L
09-22-2022
DALE C. NEWTON & DORIS R. NEWTON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.
On July 29, 2022, respondent filed in the above-docketed case a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Petitioner Doris R. Newton and To Change Caption, on the ground that no notice of determination pursuant to section 6320 and/or 6330 of the Internal Revenue Code had been sent to petitioner Doris R. Newton with respect to the taxable year 2017, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to Doris R. Newton's tax year 2017 that would confer jurisdiction on this Court, as of the date the petition was filed.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In a case seeking review of a determination concerning collection action under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C., depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C. Secs. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), I.R.C.; Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (2000). A condition precedent to the issuance of a notice of determination is the requirement that a taxpayer have requested a hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals in reference to an underlying Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320, Final Notice of Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (or the equivalent Notice CP90, Intent to seize your assets and notice of your right to a hearing, depending on the version of the form used), or analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under section 6330(f), I.R.C. (e.g., a Notice of Levy on Your State Tax Refund and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing).
Petitioners were served with a copy of respondent's motion to dismiss and, on August 26, 2022, filed an opposition, with attachment. In that submission, petitioners did not directly counter the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion and did not suggest the existence of any notice of determination concerning collection action or other relevant determination issued to Doris R. Newton. Rather, the objection centered on an overarching desire to proceed on the basis of a broad interpretation of section 6330, I.R.C., that would allow an "affected third party" to participate in the collection hearing process and to raise relevant issues. That interpretation, in turn, was premised on language included in legislative history of the statute. Such language, however, was not critically not promulgated as part of the final law passed by Congress, which law circumscribes the Tax Court's jurisdictional reach and authority.
Unfortunately, while the Court may be sympathetic to petitioners' situation, suffice it to say that none of petitioners' apparent positions or contentions can provide a basis in these circumstances to allow Doris R. Newton to remain a litigant in this case. Jurisdiction strictly pursuant to the governing statutes is fundamental in this Court of law. It is only the existence of a notice issued to a taxpayer, not his or her status as married to or filing joint returns with another taxpayer, or being an allegedly affective third party as to properly implicated in a collection matter, that permits participation as a named party in a Tax Court proceeding.
Accordingly, the record in this case fails to establish that a notice of determination or any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court was sent to Doris R. Newton with respect to the taxable year 2017. This case must therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to Doris R. Newton.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction as to Petitioner Doris R. Newton and To Change Caption is granted. This case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to Doris R. Newton, and references in the petition to Doris R. Newton are deemed stricken. It is further
ORDERED that the caption of this case is amended to read "Dale C. Newton, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent".