Opinion
894-22L
09-05-2024
JORDAN JOHN O'NEILL, ET AL., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Juan F. Vasquez Judge.
This case is before the Court on petitioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed May 27, 2024. Petitioner contends that the notice of determination was improper because it was based on "false claims contained on all 8278 Assessments related to 6702(a) penalties for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 tax years." On July 12, 2024, respondent filed a Notice of Objection to petitioner's motion.
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). This Court's jurisdiction to review certain collection activity by the Internal Revenue Service under I.R.C. sections 6320 and 6330 requires the issuance of a valid notice of determination concerning collection action and the filing of a petition with this Court for review. Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8 (2004), aff'd, 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005); Sarrell v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 122, 125 (2001); see Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U.S. 199 (2022).
The record establishes, and petitioner does not dispute, that on January 4, 2022, respondent sent by certified mail to petitioner at his last known address a notice of determination concerning collection action with respect to his income tax liabilities for tax years 2016 and 2017 and civil penalties for tax years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. The record further establishes and petitioner does not dispute that petitioner filed a Petition with this Court on January 30, 2022, seeking review of the notice of determination.
The issuance of a valid notice of determination and the filing of the Petition in this case are sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Petitioner does not dispute the validity of the notice of determination. Instead, he appears to dispute the assessments of the civil penalties referenced in the notice. Those arguments are merits-based rather than jurisdictional. Having determined that this Court has jurisdiction over this case, we need not address petitioner's arguments at this time.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed May 27, 2024, is denied.