Opinion
19841-23
05-09-2024
WILLIAM R. SAWYERS, JR., 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, filed February 6, 2024. By the Motion, respondent moves that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency, nor any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, has been issued to petitioner for the taxable year 2022. Petitioner opposes the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
On December 12, 2023, the Court received and filed correspondence from petitioner as the Petition to commence this case. That correspondence includes, inter alia, a letter by petitioner dated December 4, 2023; a copy of a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2022; and other documents and communications relating to that year. Although the letter expresses concerns about tax payments for 2022, no notice of deficiency, nor any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court for that year, is included therewith, and the letter does not state that petitioner has received any such notice or determination.
In response to the Petition, respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss presently pending before the Court. By Order served February 8, 2024, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion.
On February 29, 2024, the Court received and filed petitioner's Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Petitioner thereafter submitted additional correspondence to the Court which was received and filed on May 6, 2024. However, no notice of deficiency, nor any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, is included in the Objection or subsequent correspondence, and neither filing states that petitioner has received any such notice or determination.
Discussion
Like all federal courts, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See I.R.C. § 7442; Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 1, 11 (2021). 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 a redetermination of a deficiency, our jurisdiction depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency. See I.R.C. §§ 6212, 6213; Rule 13(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; 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).
Similarly, our jurisdiction in the collection due process context depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination. See I.R.C. §§ 6320(c), 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; 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.
After receiving notice of respondent's jurisdictional allegations and being afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond, petitioner has failed to establish that he has been issued a notice of deficiency, notice of determination concerning collection action, 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. Consequently, petitioner has failed to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction, and we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Garland v. Commissioner, 786 Fed.Appx. 240 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (affirming order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where taxpayers failed to produce notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or any other determination). It is accordingly
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.