Opinion
14796-23
12-21-2023
WILLIAM SEVERINO III, 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. Respondent moves that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that no notice of deficiency was sent to petitioner with respect to taxable year 2021, nor has respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner's taxable year 2021 that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. On November 12, 2023, petitioner submitted a document titled "Answer," which constituted his objection to respondent's motion.
Petitioner's objection to respondent's motion also contained a section titled "Motion for Summary Judgment." This would be an improper joinder of motions, in violation of Rule 54(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, which provides that "motions shall be separately stated and not joined together." Additionally, Rule 121(b)(1), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, provides that a motion for summary judgment may be filed "at any time beginning 30 days after the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial and, in any event, no later than 60 days before the first day of the Court's session at which the case is calendared for trial." Petitioner's motion for summary judgment is untimely. Accordingly, the section of petitioner's objection titled "Motion for Summary Judgment" will be recharacterized as part of petitioner's objection.
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 the Petition, petitioner appears to challenge an IRS mailing that he received with respect to tax year 2021. Petitioner did not attach any IRS mailings to the Petition; however, attached to petitioner's objection were two IRS mailings, a Notice CP05 and a Notice CP12. These mailings are not notices of deficiency and do not confer jurisdiction on this Court. As petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that he has been issued any notice of deficiency, or that respondent has made any other determination, as to his 2021 tax year that would permit him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that the document filed at Docket Index No. 9 is recharacterized as petitioner's 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, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.