From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stice v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Aug 24, 2022
No. 1454-22 (U.S.T.C. Aug. 24, 2022)

Opinion

1454-22

08-24-2022

CRAIG MARTIN STICE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge

Pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 15, 2022. Therein, respondent requests that this case be dismissed on the ground that no notice of deficiency has been issued to petitioner for the taxable years 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2015, and 2016, nor has respondent made any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for such years.

By Order served June 16, 2022, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion. To date, petitioner has filed no such objection. However, on July 6, 2022, petitioner filed a "Motion for Tax Relief." In view of the foregoing, we will treat that filing as petitioner's objection for purposes of ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.

For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.

Background

On January 12, 2022, the Court filed a letter by petitioner as an imperfect Petition to commence this case. The Petition does not allege that petitioner has been issued a notice of deficiency, notice of determination concerning collection action, or any other notice that, if so issued, would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Nor is any such notice attached thereto. Rather, the Petition requests that the Court grant petitioner "relief" for the taxable years 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2015, and 2016. Among other things, attached to the Petition is an apparent Internal Revenue Service Letter 2257C dated July 28, 2020, advising petitioner of his then-current balance due for the aforementioned taxable years.

On April 13, 2022, petitioner filed a First Amended Petition. Therein, petitioner has checked a box indicating that he disputes a notice of deficiency issued for the 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2015, and 2016 taxable years, although he does not provide the date on which that purported notice was issued, nor is any such notice attached to the First Amended Petition. On June 7, 2022, respondent filed an Answer to Amended Petition, denying that any such notice has been issued.

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; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). 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). To meet this burden, the party "must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction." Ibid.

As noted above, in response to respondent's Motion to Dismiss, petitioner has filed a "Motion for Tax Relief." Therein, petitioner "moves to request for tax relief of taxes for tax years: 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2015, and 2016." Although petitioner states in that Motion that he has attached thereto "the current notice of deficiencies for the tax years," no such notice has been so attached. Rather, petitioner has attached a series of IRS Notices CP71C issued for certain of the aforementioned taxable years. These notices-each an annual "reminder" of petitioner's apparent balance due for the taxable year identified in that particular notice-are not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.

As the foregoing demonstrates, petitioner, after having been apprised of respondent's jurisdictional allegations, and given an opportunity to respond, has failed to establish that he has been issued any notice that is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Consequently, petitioner has failed to carry his burden to "establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction," David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., 114 T.C. at 270, and we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.

Upon due consideration and for cause, it is

ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is further

ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Tax Relief is moot.


Summaries of

Stice v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

United States Tax Court
Aug 24, 2022
No. 1454-22 (U.S.T.C. Aug. 24, 2022)
Case details for

Stice v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:CRAIG MARTIN STICE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE…

Court:United States Tax Court

Date published: Aug 24, 2022

Citations

No. 1454-22 (U.S.T.C. Aug. 24, 2022)