Opinion
24837-22W
03-21-2023
ROBERT CROWDER, JR., LP TRUST D.B.A. THE 1ST PRACTICE, ROBERT CROWDER, JR., TRUSTEE, Petitioner(s) v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On November 28, 2022, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case. On the petition form, petitioner indicates that he seeks review of a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action. However, no such notice of determination is attached to the petition. On December 9, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Rule 103, which includes identifying information with respect to the taxpayers to whom petitioner's claims in this case relate. That motion was denied on December 14, 2022.
On January 11, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that no notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court was issued to petitioner. Respondent further states that it appears petitioner has not filed with the IRS Whistleblower Office a Form 211, Application for Award for Original Information (a prerequisite to receiving a relevant notice of determination) with respect to his claims in this case. On February 6, 2023, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, arguing that this Court has jurisdiction of this case because "the representative for Robert Crowder Jr LP Trust DBA 'The 1st Practice' is Robert Crowder JR who is only licensed to practice at the moment in DC under Bar number 90007050" and "the claim in question is over the amount of 2,000,000".
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. I.R.C. sec. 7442; Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). 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 whistleblower case, Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 7623(b)(4) provides that "[a]ny determination regarding an award under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) may, after such determination, be appealed to the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with respect to such matter)." In Kasper v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 37, 45 (2011), the Court held that the period for filing a whistleblower petition under section 7623(b)(4) begins to run on the date of mailing or personal delivery of the determination to the claimant at his last known address.
The Court understands that petitioner believes this Court has jurisdiction of his claims. I.R.C. section 7442, however, does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters. As discussed above, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. Because petitioner has not demonstrated that he was issued any notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 345(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, petitioner's Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Rule 103, filed December 9, 2022, is sealed from public view and shall not be inspected by any person or entity not a party to this case, except by an Order of the Court. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.