Opinion
3062-24L
04-25-2024
BRENT STACKHOUSE, STACKHOUSE AGENCY, LLC, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On February 24, 2024, petitioner Brent Stackhouse filed a petition on behalf of himself and Stackhouse Agency, LLC, purporting to dispute a notice of determination concerning collection action for tax years 2017 and 2019. Petitioners did not attach a copy of a notice of deficiency or a notice of determination for tax years 2017 or 2019 to the petition.
On April 18, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency and no notice of determination concerning collection action was issued to petitioners for tax years 2017 or 2019, nor has respondent made any other determination with respect to tax years 2017 or 2019 that would confer jurisdiction on the Court.
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. 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, generally 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. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000).
On April 19, 2024, petitioners filed a Response to the motion in which petitioners fail to address respondent's jurisdictional assertions. Petitioners did not attach a notice of deficiency or a notice of determination to the Response.
Petitioners have not provided a copy of a notice of deficiency or notice of determination that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Because no notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court has been sent to petitioners for tax years 2017 and 2019, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.