Opinion
19494-21
03-21-2022
KENNETH SHARPLES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley, Chief Judge
Pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed September 7, 2021. Therein, respondent requests that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency has been issued to petitioner, nor has respondent made any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
By Order served September 22, 2021, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion to Dismiss. On October 19, 2021, petitioner filed such an Objection.
For the reasons set forth below, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
On June 2, 2021, petitioner filed the Petition to commence this case. The Petition consists solely of a handwritten letter, dated May 20, 2021, wherein petitioner states, among other things: "This inquiry is due to owed stimulus and letter[s] I have gotten from your Kansas City, MO office." The Petition does not reference any notice of deficiency or any other determination made by respondent, nor is any such notice or evidence of such a determination attached thereto.
Discussion
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. See I.R.C. § 7442; Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230, 235 (2016). Where this Court's jurisdiction is duly challenged, as here, 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 redetermination of a deficiency, our jurisdiction depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. See I.R.C. §§ 6212, 6213, and 6214; Rule 13(a) and (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989). Indeed, because the issuance of a notice of deficiency is a necessary 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).
All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure..
In his Motion to Dismiss, respondent asserts that he has conducted a diligent search of his records in an attempt to determine whether a notice of deficiency has been issued to petitioner, and that, based on that search, he has determined that no such notice has been issued. Moreover, respondent further asserts that, based on the foregoing search, no other determination has been made by respondent that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
In his Objection, petitioner does not contend that he has received a notice of deficiency, nor is any such notice (or any evidence that respondent has made any other determination) attached thereto. Rather, petitioner has attached a letter dated September 2, 2021, from respondent's counsel in this case, wherein such counsel advises petitioner that respondent will be filing a motion to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, petitioner has attached a Memorandum and Order issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on April 22, 2021, dismissing with prejudice a petition for injunctive relief against the IRS filed by petitioner (Kenneth Sharples), wherein he had alleged that the IRS "failed to comply with the CARES Act and his Economic Impact Payments". The Memorandum and Order issued by the U.S. District Court advises petitioner that "Federal tax payments are subject to a broad regulatory scheme which requires persons challenging any alleged deficiency to adhere to specific procedures and the deadlines." The District Court further advises: "Those include seeking relief from the IRS itself, and then from a United States Tax Court-not a district court."
As the District Court noted, any taxpayer seeking to challenge an alleged deficiency must adhere to specific procedures. After having been apprised of the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's Motion to Dismiss and given an opportunity to respond, petitioner has not provided the Court with any notice of deficiency, notice of determination, or evidence of any other determination made by respondent sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. To the extent petitioner believes he is "owed [a] stimulus" payment by the IRS for some unidentified taxable year, he has failed to demonstrate how this Court has jurisdiction over that matter. Consequently, petitioner has failed to "establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270. Accordingly, we must grant respondent's Motion and 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.