Opinion
2213-22
05-25-2023
ERENDIRA RANGEL-PALACIOS, Petitioner 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. Petitioner opposes the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
The Petition filed to commence this case on January 18, 2022, indicates that petitioner seeks to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under section 6015(e) to review a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability (or the failure of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to make such a determination within six months after a request for such relief). However, no such notice, nor any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, is attached to the Petition. Nor is a copy of any request for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 filed by petitioner with the IRS. The Petition indicates that it relates to petitioner's federal income tax liability for the taxable year 2013.
Unless otherwise indicated, 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.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. See § 7442; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C., slip op. at 11 (Nov. 29, 2022). 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), affd, 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.
As noted above, the Petition in this case seeks to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under section 6015(e)-apparently in relation to petitioner's federal income tax liability for the taxable year 2013. In such cases, our jurisdiction depends in part on the issuance of a final determination by the IRS of the relief available to an individual under that section or the failure by the IRS to issue such a determination within six months after a request for such relief has been filed or made. See I.R.C. § 6015(e)(1)(A).
In his Motion to Dismiss, respondent notes that a Notice of Deficiency was previously issued to petitioner for the taxable year 2013; that petitioner timely commenced a Tax Court case with respect to that Notice; and that the Court entered a decision in the case on November 20, 2018. Respondent asserts that petitioner has not filed a request for relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 for the taxable year 2013, and that respondent has not issued any notice of determination concerning such relief. Respondent further asserts that, to the extent petitioner may possibly be seeking to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under section 6330(d), no notice of determination concerning collection action has been issued to petitioner.
In response, petitioner has failed to address the foregoing allegations and, moreover, has failed to produce a copy of any notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 or any request for such relief filed by petitioner with the IRS. See Rule 321(b)(2). Our own review of the record reveals no indication that respondent has made any determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court in this case. Consequently, petitioner has failed to "establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." Ibid; see also Garland v. Commissioner, 786 Fed.Appx. 240 (11th Cir. 2019) (affirming an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where taxpayers had failed to produce a notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or any other determination pertaining to the taxable years raised in the petition). That being so, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed April 7, 2022, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.