Opinion
5178-24P
06-13-2024
DONALD RAY PIERRE, SR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike as to Petitioner's Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action and Notice of Determination Under Section 7623 Concerning Whistleblower Action Allegations (respondent's motion), filed May 21, 2024. Therein respondent moves that this case be dismissed (1) as to a notice of determination concerning collection action, on the ground that no such notice was issued to petitioner as to tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2018, and (2) as to a notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 7623 concerning whistleblower action, on the ground that no such notice was issued to petitioner. Petitioner objects to the granting of the motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's motion.
Like all federal courts, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See I.R.C. § 7442; Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 1, 11 (2021). 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.
In a case seeking review of certain IRS collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330 (after petitioner has requested and received a collection due process hearing following the issuance of a notice of filing of federal tax lien and/or a final notice of intent to levy) 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. Similarly, in a whistleblower action, our jurisdiction depends in part upon the issuance of a notice of determination under I.R.C. section 7623 concerning whistleblower action. See I.R.C. § 7623(b)(4).
The Petition to commence this case was filed on April 1, 2024. Petitioner indicates that he seeks review, with respect to tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2018, of a notice of determination concerning collection action and a notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 7623 concerning whistleblower action. Petitioner did not attach either of these notices to the Petition. (The Petition also indicates that petitioner seeks review of a notice of certification of your seriously delinquent federal tax debt to the Department of State; this notice is not the subject of respondent's motion and remains before the Court.)
In his objection to respondent's motion, petitioner focuses on the difficulties he has encountered in attempting to address identity theft issues for tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2018. Petitioner first asserts that respondent has taken collection action; however, petitioner does not provide any copy of a notice of determination concerning collection action. Petitioner also appears to indicate that he does not object to respondent's motion, insofar as it concerns any whistleblower claim.
We are sympathetic to petitioner's situation. However, as petitioner has not demonstrated that he was issued any notice of determination concerning collection action for tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2018, nor that he was issued a notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 7623 concerning whistleblower action, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction, insofar as it concerns such notices.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike as to Petitioner's Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action and Notice of Determination Under Section 7623 Concerning Whistleblower Action Allegations is granted, in that so much of this case relating to a notice of determination concerning collection action for tax years 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2018, and so much of this case relating to a notice of determination under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 7623 concerning whistleblower action, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and deemed stricken from the Court's record.
Petitioner is advised that this case will continue as to the notice of certification of your seriously delinquent federal tax debt to the Department of State, which was issued to petitioner concerning tax debt for the years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2018. A copy of this notice is attached to respondent's Answer, which was filed on May 21, 2024.