Opinion
6408-24S
07-26-2024
HEAVEN ROBERTS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On July 24, 2024, respondent filed in the above-docketed case a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the grounds that no notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, or notice of determination concerning collection action pursuant to section 6320 and/or 6330, I.R.C., had been sent to petitioner with respect to taxable year 2020, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner's 2020 tax year that would confer jurisdiction on the Court, as of the date the petition herein was filed. Respondent represents that petitioner does not object to the granting of the 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, our jurisdiction in the collection due process context depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination concerning collection action. See I.R.C. §§ 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).
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.