Opinion
9678-23
10-05-2023
PRADEEP KUMAR PULAPPATTA & SINDHU PRADEEP, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On June 18, 2023, petitioners filed the Petition to commence this case. On July 12, 2023, petitioners filed a First Amended Petition, indicating that they seek review with respect to their 2004 tax year. Petitioners attached no notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court to either filing. On September 7, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that no determination was made with respect to petitioners' 2004 tax year that would confer jurisdiction on the Court. On September 29, 2023, petitioners filed an objection to respondent's motion.
Like all federal courts, 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). Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters. 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).
In a deficiency case this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the filing of a petition by the petitioner. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). 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 I.R.C. section 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.
As petitioners have not produced or otherwise demonstrated that they have been issued any notice of deficiency, or that respondent has made any other determination, as to their 2004 tax year that would permit them to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration of the record in this case, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that the documents filed at Docket Entry Nos. 33 and 34 are recharacterized as petitioner's Reports. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is hereby dismissed.