Opinion
22465-22
03-24-2023
JESSICA M. SCOTT-FELDER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
On October 12, 2022, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case, indicating therein that she seeks review of a notice of deficiency issued for her 2022 tax year, and a Motion to Proceed Remotely. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as to her 2022 tax year is attached to the petition. On November 28, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner, nor has respondent made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioner's 2022 tax year.
On December 27, 2022, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, stating that the tax year for which she seeks review is tax year 2019. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court concerning petitioner's 2019 tax year is attached to petitioner's objection.
On January 4, 2023, respondent filed a Response to Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, asserting that no notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner, nor has respondent made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioner's 2019 tax year. Although the Court provided petitioner the opportunity to file a Reply to respondent's response, petitioner has not done so.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. In a deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). Similarly, in a case seeking review of certain IRS collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination (after the taxpayer has properly requested a collection due process hearing) under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 and the filing by the taxpayer of a petition concerning that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 38 (2005); I.R.C. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Other types of IRS notices which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, are a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability (or failure of IRS to make determination within 6 months after election or request for relief), a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim (or failure of IRS to make final determination within 180 days after claim for abatement), a notice of determination of worker classification, a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action, and a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent Federal tax debt to the Department of State. No claims involving I.R.C. sections 6015, 6404(h), 7436, 7623, or 7345, respectively, appear to be involved in this case.
Here, petitioner has not demonstrated that she was issued any notice of deficiency, or that respondent has made any other determination, concerning her 2019 or 2022 tax years that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, we are obliged to 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. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Proceed Remotely is denied as moot.