Opinion
3996-22SL
06-13-2023
RAYMOND MARK PFEIFFER & LYNN M. PFEIFFER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On March 7, 2022, petitioners filed the Petition to commence this case. On the Petition form, petitioners checked the boxes indicating that they seek review of a notice of deficiency and a notice of determination concerning collection action with respect to their 2016 and 2018 tax years. By Order served March 3, 2023, the Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction so much of this case relating to tax year 2018 on the grounds that no notice of deficiency was issued, nor had respondent made any other determination, that would confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioners' 2018 tax year.
On May 2, 2023, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing the parties to show cause in writing why so much of this case relating to a notice of deficiency for petitioners' 2016 tax year should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In the Order to Show Cause, the Court noted that a notice of deficiency issued for petitioners' 2016 tax year was the subject of the case at Docket No. 18079-18S, in which a stipulated decision was entered March 29, 2019. The Court's decision at Docket No. 18079-18S is now final.
Thereafter respondent filed a Response to Order to Show Cause, in which he agreed that the Court lacks jurisdiction as to the notice of deficiency for tax year 2016. Petitioners also filed a Response to Order to Show Cause. As we understand petitioners' Response, they assert that (1) the stipulated decision for the case at Docket No. 18079-18S includes below-the-line language indicating that the 2016 deficiency set forth therein was fully paid; (2) despite that language, the Internal Revenue Service erroneously applied a portion of an overpayment for their 2018 tax year to their 2016 deficiency; and (3) they are due a refund for tax year 2018.
Because petitioners previously challenged the notice of deficiency for 2016 at Docket No. 18079-18S, it follows that such notice does not provide a basis for petitioner to invoke the Court's Jurisdiction in this action, nor does the Court have the authority to vacate its decision, which is now final. See Abatti v. Commissioner, 859 F.2d 115, 117 (9th Cir. 1988), aff'g 86 T.C. 1319 (1986). Finally, there is no indication that respondent has issued any other notice that would permit petitioners to invoke the Court's jurisdiction for 2016, besides the notice of determination concerning collection action for that year. The Court will therefore dismiss for lack of jurisdiction so much of this case as relates to a notice of deficiency for tax year 2016.
Still pending with the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss on Ground of Mootness as to a notice of determination concerning collection action for petitioners' 2016 tax year. That Motion remains under advisement.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that the Court's May 2, 2023, Order to Show Cause is made absolute, in that so much of this case relating to a notice of deficiency for petitioners' 2016 tax year is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.