Opinion
10896-22S
05-19-2023
JOSHUA DOUGLAS PERRY, Petitioner 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 May 30, 2023, Washington, District of Columbia, trial session of the Court.
Pending before the Court is the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed May 15, 2023. The Commissioner states that no valid notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, was issued to Mr. Perry with respect to his tax year 2019. 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 I.R.C. § 6211(a). The motion states that Mr. Perry does not object to the Court granting the motion, and on May 17, 2023, Mr. Perry confirmed his non-objection.
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 taxpayers 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 the taxpayer. Rule 13(a) and (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Normally, it is respondent's determination of a deficiency, as opposed to the existence of a deficiency, that provides a predicate for Tax Court 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 the Court 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 and accuracy-related penalty were 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, Mr. Perry paid the deficiency at issue prior to the issuance of the notice, and we will grant the Commissioner's jurisdiction motion on the ground that the notice of deficiency issued to petitioner 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 May 15, 2023, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the purported notice of deficiency is invalid.