Opinion
5771-24
09-19-2024
GLADYS OWENS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
Pending before the Court in this case is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed May 7, 2024. Therein, respondent moves that this case be dismissed on the ground that no notice of deficiency, nor any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, has been issued to petitioner for the taxable years 2015, 2016, or 2022 (i.e., the taxable years raised in the Petition). Petitioner opposes the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant the Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
On April 8, 2024, the Court received and filed correspondence from petitioner as the Petition to commence this case. The Petition consists of an undated letter by petitioner; an apparent copy of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notice CP504 sent to petitioner dated February 26, 2024; and an apparent copy of an IRS Notice LT38 sent to petitioner dated March 25, 2024. In the body of the letter petitioner writes:
Neither of these IRS notices is a determination that confers jurisdiction on this Court.
Hello my name is Gladys Owens and I am so super grateful to the God & Goddess as well as the IRS for your acknowledgment that I earned $469,018.30 * * * in cash for the years of 2016, 2015, 2022 . . . I am open to receiving this cash money directly as soon as possible in my hands as I know the universe will deliver to me happiness, success & prosperity!!!
Petitioner does not claim in the letter or elsewhere in the documents filed as the Petition that she has received a notice of deficiency, notice of determination concerning collection action, or any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.
In response to the Petition, respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction pending before the Court. By Order served May 8, 2024, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to the Motion. On May 30, 2024, petitioner filed such an Objection, stating that she "is hereby requesting a collection due process hearing because the Respondents [sic] have been and still are constantly extorting ten percent of income the petitioner has yet to actually receive." Although petitioner has made numerous other filings with the Court following the filing of respondent's Motion, petitioner has not to date produced a notice of deficiency, notice of determination concerning collection action, or any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.
Discussion
Like all federal courts, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 1, 11 (2021). We may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See § 7442; Ramey, 156 T.C. at 11. 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.
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.
In a case seeking 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). 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.
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 concerning collection action, 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. That being so, it is
To the extent petitioner argues in her Objection that section 7441 generally confers jurisdiction on this Court to provide a forum where petitioner "may challenge the IRS determinations of the petitioner's lack of tax payments," we must disagree. We have considered the remainder of petitioner's arguments, and, to the extent not addressed herein, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion to Dismiss is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground stated in that Motion. It is further
ORDERED that all other pending motions and requests for relief in this case are moot.