Opinion
34748-21
07-29-2022
HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
Petitioner sent the Court a letter, addressed to the "Department of the Treasury I.R.S.", which was filed protectively as a petition on November 2, 2021. In the letter, petitioner inquired about an "economic impact payment" and attached a tax return for the taxable year 2020. No notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court was attached to the letter. On February 14, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that no notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court in this case had been issued to petitioner.
By Order dated April 25, 2022, petitioner was directed to file an objection to respondent's motion. He asked for and received two extensions of time in which to file an objection. His latest Motion for Extension of Time, filed July 18, 2022, asks for an extension of time until August 10, 2022. It also requests that the Court direct respondent to pay petitioner an economic impact payment for taxable years 2020 and 2021, as well as $50,000 in punitive damages. Nothing in the record, including petitioner's Letter Dated July 15, 2022, requesting the appointment of counsel, or in his most recent motion, suggests that the Court has jurisdiction in this case.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. We may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). We are unable to accept tax returns for filing, appoint counsel, or direct the IRS to issue economic impact payments or pay punitive damages.
In addition, 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). Based on this record, it does not appear that another extension of time would be productive in assisting petitioner with meeting that burden.
Accordingly, and upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time is denied. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Proceed Remotely, filed February 7, 2022, is denied as moot.