Opinion
9285-23
12-27-2023
SONIA LUZ PEDINOTTI, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On June 10, 2023, respondent filed in this case a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that (1) as to a notice of deficiency issued to petitioner for tax year 2018, the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code, and (2) as to petitioner's 2023 tax year, respondent has made no determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Although the Court provided petitioner the opportunity to file an objection to respondent's motion, petitioner has not done so.
Like all federal courts, the Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a taxpayer invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the taxpayer's 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 deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hoffenberg v. Commissioner, 905 F.2d 665 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam), aff 'g T.C. Memo. 1989-676; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 n.4 (2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); see Sanders v. Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 161 T.C., slip op. at 7-8 (Nov. 2, 2023) (holding that the Court will continue treating the deficiency deadline as jurisdictional in cases appealable to jurisdictions outside the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit). Similarly, in a case seeking review of certain IRS collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination (after petitioner has requested and received a collection due process hearing) under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) §6320 or §6330 and the filing by the taxpayer of a petition concerning that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 38 (2005); I.R.C. §§6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Other IRS notices which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, are a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability (or failure of IRS to make determination within 6 months after election or request for relief), 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), a notice of determination of worker classification, a notice of determination under §7623 concerning whistleblower action, and a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent Federal tax debt to the Department of State.
The record in this case establishes that, as to the notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2018 tax year, the Petition was not timely filed. We have no authority to extend the period for timely filing. See Hallmark Rsch. Collective, 159 T.C. at 167; Axe v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 256, 259 (1972); Joannou v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 868, 869 (1960). Furthermore, petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that respondent made any determination as to her 2023 tax year sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. We are, therefore, obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. However, although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may still pursue an administrative resolution of petitioner's tax liability directly with the Internal Revenue Service.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.