Opinion
17064-22S
06-29-2023
ARTURO O'FARRILL & ALISON DEANE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Adam B. Landy Special Trial Judge.
This case is calendared for trial at the November 13, 2023, standalone remote trial session of the Court.
Pending before the Court is the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed June 28, 2023. The Commissioner states that no valid notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, was issued to petitioners with respect to their tax year 2020. The Commissioner further states that the deficiency was paid prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency (notice), and the determined amount on the notice does not qualify as a deficiency within the meaning of section 6211(a)(1)-(2). The motion states that petitioners do not object to the Court granting the motion.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
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 addition, jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and petitioners invoking our jurisdiction bear the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over their 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 the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition by petitioners. Rule 13(a) and (c). Normally, it is the Commissioner's determination of a deficiency, as opposed to the existence of a deficiency, that provides a predicate for our jurisdiction. Baldwin v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 704, 710 (1991) (citing Hannan v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 787, 791 (1969)). Otherwise, in every case in which we determined that no deficiency existed, we would lack jurisdiction. Id. at 711. However, this Court and others have recognized an exception to this rule where the record shows that the deficiency was paid prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency. Bendheim v. Commissioner, 214 F.2d 26, 28 (2d Cir. 1954); McConkey v. Commissioner, 199 F.2d 892, 895 (4th Cir. 1952); Estate of Crawford v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. 262, 271 (1966); Walsh v. Commissioner, 21 T.C. 1063, 1067 (1954); Anderson v. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 841, 843 (1948).
Based on the undisputed jurisdictional allegations in the Commissioner's motion, petitioners paid the deficiency prior to the issuance of the notice, and as such, we will grant the Commissioner's motion on the ground that the notice of deficiency issued to petitioners is invalid.
Upon due consideration of the Commissioner's motion and for cause, it is
ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed June 28, 2023, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the stated ground.