Opinion
5508-24S
08-07-2024
ARTHUR BRYAN SCHMEISER, 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 June 4, 2024. Petitioner objects to the granting of respondent's motion.
Petitioner was issued two notices of deficiency for tax year 2018. The first was dated December 13, 2021, and provided that the last date to file a petition in this Court was March 14, 2022. The second was dated February 14, 2022, and provided that the last date to file a petition was May 16, 2022.
On May 2, 2022, petitioner filed the petition to commence the case at Docket No. 10469-22, which disputed the second, February 14, 2022, notice of deficiency. See I.R.C. § 6212(c); Gmelin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-338, aff'd without published opinion, 891 F.2d 280 (3d Cir. 1989). On July 13, 2023, the Court entered the parties' stipulated decision in that case, which decision is now final. See I.R.C § 7481(a)(1). Therein the parties agreed that there was a deficiency in income tax due from the petitioner for the taxable year 2018 in the amount of $13,432.00 and that there was a penalty due from the petitioner for the taxable year 2018 under the provisions of I.RC. section 6662(a) in the amount of $0.00. The parties further stipulated that interest would be assessed as provided by law on the deficiency.
On April 2, 2024, petitioner filed the petition to commence the above-docketed case, which was assigned Docket No. 5508-24S. On the petition form, petitioner indicated that he disputed a notice of deficiency for tax year 2018. However, petitioner explained that his disagreement lay instead with respondent's processing of the decision entered in his previous case: specifically, he disagreed with the interest charged by the IRS on his 2018 deficiency.
On June 4, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on grounds that the petition in this case was not filed timely with respect to either of the notices of deficiency petitioner was issued for tax year 2018, nor had respondent issued any other notices or made any other determinations for tax year 2018 that would confer jurisdiction on the Court. On June 5, 2024, petitioner filed an objection to respondent's motion. Petitioner asserted that respondent was not honoring the stipulated decision entered in his prior case and explained that he had commenced the present proceeding in order to enforce that decision.
On June 6, 2024, the Court directed respondent to file a response to petitioner's objection, therein clarifying the processing of petitioner's 2018 account. On July 12, 2024, respondent filed a response to petitioner's objection. Attached to the response was a statement of account for petitioner's 2018 tax year, which showed that on December 4, 2023, respondent assessed not only the $13,432.00 deficiency, but also a failure-to-pay addition to tax under I.R.C. 6651(a)(2) and interest. Although petitioner paid the $13,432.00 deficiency for 2018 on March 21, 2024, the addition to tax and interest are still outstanding.
On July 12, 2024, petitioner filed his objection to respondent's motion, which was erroneously designated as an Answer. Petitioner stated that he did not agree with the assessment of interest; he had evidently been advised not to pay the deficiency until he received a "correct invoice" from the IRS, which did not arrive until 2024.
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).
In this proceeding, petitioner challenges respondent's processing of the decision entered in his previous case. He has not asserted that he was issued any new notice, or that respondent has made any determination, that would confer jurisdiction on the Court. Further, because a decision as to tax year 2018 was entered in petitioner's prior case at Docket No. 10469-22, and that decision is now final, we no longer have jurisdiction as to tax year 2018. Accordingly, we will grant respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's document filed at Docket Index No. 18 is recharacterized as petitioner's Reply to Response to Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, in that this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it is duplicative of petitioner's prior case at Docket No. 10469-22.