Opinion
18750-22S
11-08-2022
JAMES D. SEMELROTH & CAROL E. SEMELROTH, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge.
The petition underlying the above-docketed proceeding was filed on August 15, 2022, and indicated dispute of a Notice of Final Determination for [Full/Partial] Disallowance of Interest Abatement Claim (or Failure of IRS to Make Final Determination Within 180 Days After Claim for Abatement). Taxable year 2020 was referenced as the period in contention. No notices of deficiency or determination issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were attached to the petition. Rather, petitioners' statements centered on complaints pertaining to petitioners' failure to receive so-called economic impact stimulus payments, and they attached a voluminous collection of copies of various IRS communications in the form of other notices and letters that related to such payments or lack thereof.
Subsequently, on October 13, 2022, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the grounds that: (1) No notice of final determination for full or partial disallowance of an interest abatement claim pursuant to section 6404(h) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.), had been sent to petitioners for the tax year 2020; (2) respondent had not made any other determination with respect to petitioners' such tax year 2020 that would confer jurisdiction on the Court; and (3) petitioners had not submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a claim for interest abatement for such year.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In a case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the issuance by the Commissioner of a valid notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).
Similarly, this Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination concerning collection action under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C., depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals under section 6320 or 6330, I.R.C. Secs. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1), I.R.C.; Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (2000). A condition precedent to the issuance of a notice of determination is the requirement that a taxpayer have requested a hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals in reference to an underlying Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320, Final Notice of Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing (or the equivalent Notice CP90, Intent to seize your assets and notice of your right to a hearing, depending on the version of the form used), or analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under section 6330(f), I.R.C. (e.g., a Notice of Levy on Your State Tax Refund and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing).
In a case based upon failure of the IRS to abate interest, jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the timely filing of a petition by the taxpayer. Sec. 6404(h), I.R.C.; Rule 280(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Again, if the conditions of section 7502, I.R.C., are satisfied, a petition which is timely mailed may be treated as having been timely filed. Jurisdiction under section 6404(h), I.R.C., also rests in part on issuance of a determination by the IRS under that section or the failure by the IRS to issue such a determination within 180 days of the filing of a claim for interest abatement. More specifically, section 6404(h), I.R.C., provides:
(1) In general.--The Tax Court shall have jurisdiction over any action brought by a taxpayer who meets the requirements referred to in section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) to determine whether the Secretary's failure to abate interest under this section was an abuse of discretion, and may order an abatement if such action is brought--
(A) at any time after the earlier of--
(i) the date of the mailing of the Secretary's final determination not to abate such interest, or
(ii) the date which is 180 days after the date of the filing with the Secretary (in such form as the Secretary may prescribe) of a claim for abatement under this section, and
(B) not later than the date with is 180 days after the date described in subparagraph (A)(i).
Other types of IRS notice which may form the basis for a petition to the Tax Court, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, include a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief From Joint and Several Liability, a Notice of Determination of Worker Classification, Notice of Certification of Your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt to the State Department, or a Notice of Final Determination Concerning Whistleblower Action. No pertinent claims involving section 6015, 7436, 7345, or 7623, I.R.C., respectively, have been implicated here. Similarly absent is any suggestion that the perquisites have been met to support one of the statutorily described declaratory judgment actions that may be undertaken by the Court.
Petitioners were served with a copy of respondent's motion and on November 2, 2022, filed a response in objection. Therein, petitioners did not directly deny the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion, i.e., petitioners did not claim or show that the IRS had sent a relevant notice of deficiency or determination or any other jurisdictional notice for 2020, nor did they reference any request for interest abatement. Instead, petitioners conceded the lack of a formal determination but took the position that the IRS's actions nonetheless allowed for Tax Cout involvement, as follows: "Respondent claims that no final determination of Petitioner's case was sent to Petitioner. This is the first IRS statement in two years of appeals that Petitioner agrees with. Petitioner can find no document from the IRS that specifically stated Final Determination of Petitioner's case. However, although the IRS has not sent a notice of Final Determination to Petitioner, the IRS without a final determination stole $1231.47 from Petitioner's 2021 IRS refund." Petitioners then went on to highlight an extensive saga of efforts to resolved the matter administratively with the IRS, including attempts to request assistance from the Taxpayer Advocate Service and the U.S. Congress. Conversely, petitioners did not allude to or attach any further notices from the IRS that could bear upon the jurisdictional query before the Court.
Thus, the record at this juncture suggests that petitioners may have sought the assistance of the Court after having become frustrated with administrative actions by the IRS and any attempts to work with the agency but that the petition here was not based upon or instigated by a specific IRS notice expressly providing petitioners with the right to contest a particular IRS determination in this Court. Suffice it to say that no IRS communication supplied or referenced by petitioners to date constitutes, or can substitute for, a notice of deficiency issued pursuant to 6212, I.R.C., a notice of determination issued pursuant to sections 6320 and/or 6330, I.R.C., or any other of the narrow class of specified determinations by the IRS that can open the door to the Tax Court for purposes of this case. To the contrary, petitioners' apparently expansive view of the Court's authority fails to comport with the limited nature of the jurisdiction set forth in the statutory parameters set forth above. Stated otherwise, the Tax Court has no role or authority in the administration of the so-called economic stimulus payments.
In conclusion then, while the Court is sympathetic to petitioners' situation and understands the challenges of the circumstances faced and the good faith efforts made, the Court on the present record lacks jurisdiction in this case to review any action (or inaction) by respondent in regard to petitioners' taxes. Congress has granted the Tax Court no authority to afford any remedy in the circumstances evidenced by this proceeding, regardless of the merits of petitioners' complaints.
The premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.