Opinion
4014-24
09-26-2024
GARY RAMSEY & NADINE RICHARDS-RAMSEY, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed April 17, 2024. Therein, respondent moves that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency, nor any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, has been issued to petitioners for the taxable years raised in the Petition. Petitioners oppose the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
In filing the Petition to commence this case on March 11, 2024, petitioners utilized a copy of Tax Court Form 2, Petition (Simplified Form). Under paragraph 1 of Form 2-which asks taxpayers to check the appropriate box(es) to show which Internal Revenue Service (IRS) action(s) the taxpayers dispute-petitioners checked five of the seven available boxes, indicating that they dispute (1) a notice of deficiency, (2) a notice of determination concerning collection action, (3) a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim, (4) a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015,and (5) a notice of certification of your seriously delinquent federal tax debt to the department of state. Petitioners listed the date(s) of the notice(s) as February 26, 2024, and the year(s) for which the notice(s) were issued as 2019 through 2024. Despite checking the box on Form 2 indicating that they had included a copy of any notice(s) the IRS issued to them, petitioners failed to include with the Petition a copy of a notice of deficiency or any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case.
All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
In response to the Petition, respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction pending before the Court. By Order served April 17, 2024, the Court directed petitioners to file an objection, if any, to the Motion. Petitioners' Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction was filed on May 13, 2024. No notice of deficiency, nor any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case, was included with the Objection. Instead, petitioners argue that "the U.S. Tax Court does have the power to act in a certain way to provide help with [petitioners'] case," and that it "has authority over the IRS agents that have falsified information about [petitioners], defamation of character and sending [petitioners] harassing correspondences."
To date, no notice of deficiency, nor any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case, appears in the record.
Discussion
Like all federal courts, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 1, 11 (2021). We may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See § 7442; Ramey, 156 T.C. at 11. 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 redetermination of a deficiency, our jurisdiction depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency. See §§ 6212, 6213; Rule 13(a); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 139-40 (2022). Indeed, because the issuance of a notice of deficiency is a prerequisite to invoking this Court's deficiency jurisdiction, the notice is often called the taxpayer's "ticket to the Tax Court." Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).
Likewise, our jurisdiction in the collection due process context depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination. See §§ 6320(c), 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b); Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8 (2004), aff'd, 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000). It follows that when a valid notice of determination has not been issued to the taxpayer, we are obliged to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. See Offiler, 114 T.C. at 498; Mighty v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-44, slip op. at *2 n.2.
Other IRS notices that may form the basis of a petition to this Court-under similarly strict statutorily prescribed parameters-include (as relevant here) a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim, see section 6404(h), a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015, see section 6015(e), and a notice of certification of your seriously delinquent federal tax debt to the department of state, see section 7345(e).
After receiving notice of respondent's jurisdictional allegations and being afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond, petitioners have failed to establish that they have been issued a notice of deficiency or any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case. Moreover, our own review of the record reveals no indication that respondent has acted-or failed to act-in any manner that could support the Court's jurisdiction in this case. We have considered the arguments in petitioners' Objection and decline to adopt their expansive conception of this Court's jurisdiction. In view of the foregoing, and as petitioners have failed to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction, we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. That being so, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion to Dismiss is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the above-stated ground. It is further
ORDERED that all other pending motions are moot.