Opinion
15981-23
05-22-2024
VERONICA NIXON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed November 14, 2023. By the Motion, respondent moves that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency, nor any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court in this case, has been issued to petitioner. Petitioner opposes the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
In the Petition filed to commence this case on October 10, 2023, petitioner checked three boxes indicating that she seeks review of the following Internal Revenue Service (IRS) actions: (1) 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); (2) a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 (or failure of IRS to make determination within 6 months after election or relief for relief); and (3) a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action.
All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim, notice of determination concerning for relief from joint and several liability, or notice of determination concerning whistleblower action is attached to the Petition; nor does petitioner allege therein that she has filed a claim for abatement of interest or a request for relief from joint and several liability. Rather, the Petition appears to seek the Court's assistance with the processing of an amended return for the taxable year 2021 (and possibly also for the taxable year 2022), as well as the processing of a refund apparently claimed by petitioner for that year (and possibly also for 2022).
In response to the Petition, respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss presently pending before the Court. By Order served November 28, 2023, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion.
On December 28, 2023, the Court received and filed a Letter by Petitioner. That submission appears to continue petitioner's requests for assistance with the processing of a refund apparently claimed by petitioner for 2021 (and possibly also for 2022). Petitioner does not allege in the Letter that she has filed a claim for abatement of interest or a request for relief from joint and several liability, and no notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case is attached thereto or otherwise appears in the record.
Discussion
Like all federal courts, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See § 7442; Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 1, 11 (2021). 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 a 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). Indeed, because the issuance of a notice of deficiency is a prerequisite to invoking this Court's deficiency jurisdiction, the notice is often called the taxpayer's "ticket to the Tax Court." Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).
Similarly, our jurisdiction in the collection due process context depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination. 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). It follows that when a valid notice of determination has not been issued to the taxpayer, we are obliged to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. See Offiler, 114 T.C. at 498; Mighty v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-44, slip op. at *2 n.2.
Furthermore, our jurisdiction in a case involving a notice of final determination with respect to the disallowance of a claim for abatement of interest under section 6404(h) requires the filing of the Tax Court petition by the earlier of (1) a date within 180 days after the date of mailing of the final notice of determination or (2) the date which is 180 days after the claim for abatement of interest under section 6404 is filed. It thus follows that an essential prerequisite to the filing of a petition concerning an interest abatement claim is that a formal claim for abatement of interest be filed with the IRS.
Our jurisdiction in so-called "stand-alone" innocent spouse proceedings under section 6015(e) depends in part on the issuance of a final determination by the IRS of the relief available to an individual under that section or the failure by the IRS to issue such a determination within six months after a request for such relief has been filed or made. See I.R.C. § 6015(e)(1)(A).
Finally, our jurisdiction in a whistleblower action depends in part upon the issuance of a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action. See § 7623(b)(4).
After receiving notice of respondent's jurisdictional allegations and being afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond, petitioner has failed to establish that she has been issued a notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case. Moreover, our own review of the record reveals no indication that respondent has acted-or failed to act-in any manner that could support the Court's jurisdiction 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, e.g., Garland v. Commissioner, 786 Fed.Appx. 240 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (affirming order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where taxpayers failed to produce notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or any other determination). It is accordingly
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.