Opinion
4016-23
07-05-2023
WILLIAM L. RIDENOUR, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
Pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed May 24, 2023. Therein, respondent requests that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency has been issued to petitioner, nor has respondent made any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
By Order served June 2, 2023, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion to Dismiss. On June 21, 2023, petitioner filed such an Objection.
For the reasons set forth below, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
On February 22, 2023, petitioner filed the Petition to commence this case. The Petition consists of a handwritten letter, dated February 13, 2023, wherein petitioner states, among other things: "My petition concerns the denial of the first ($1200) and second ($600) stimulus payments by the IRS." The Petition does not reference a notice of deficiency or any other determination made by respondent, nor is any notice or evidence of such a determination attached thereto.
On April 27, 2023, petitioner filed a First Amended Petition, stating therein that he seeks:
a redetermination of the deficiency notice issued by Respondent (Internal Revenue Service (IRS)) on November 21, 2022, [and that the Court] determine Petitioner's right to receive the first and second Economic Impact Payments (EIP) under the "CASES Act" and the "Consolidated Appropriations Act," … 2021 and determine the correct amount due to Petitioner from the IRS.
No notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court in this case was attached to the amended petition.
Discussion
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). 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). Petitioner has not provided any notice which would permit him to invoke this Court's jurisdiction, and respondent asserts in his motion that none has been issued.
In his objection to respondent's motion, petitioner points to his Exhibit B attached to the amended petition as evidence that a notice of deficiency was issued to him with respect to his taxable years 2020 and 2021. However, Exhibit B is an IRS Notice CP13 explaining that the IRS "found an error on [petitioner's] 2021 Form 1040, which affects the… Recovery Rebate Credit." Similarly, Exhibit C is an IRS Letter 86C (correspondence concerning petitioner's Form 1040 for 2021), Exhibit D is an Administrative Protest of Tax Refund Denial dated January 20, 2023, and Exhibit E is another letter from the IRS responding to an inquiry from petitioner made January 27, 2023. None of these is a statutory notice of deficiency authorized by § 6212 and required by I.R.C. § 6213(a), and none of these documents give rise to jurisdiction in this Court.
Nothing in the record suggests that we have jurisdiction to hear petitioner's case, and accordingly, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.