Opinion
19863-22L
02-07-2024
RAYMOND G. VALENZUELA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
JAMES S. HALPERN JUDGE
Respondent has moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Motion to Dismiss) and also has moved to continue the case (Motion to Continue). Petitioner objects to the first motion but not to the second. We need not consider the second motion because we will grant the first motion. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Respondent move that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction upon the ground that the petition was not filed within the time prescribed by section 6213(a) and 7502 and Rule 13, nor has respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner's taxable years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 that would confer jurisdiction on this Court.
On August 31, 2022, petitioner filed the petition. He checked the box indicating he was disputing a statutory notice of deficiency for the 2009 through 2017 taxable years. He attached to his petition two separate letters from respondent dated August 18, 2022.
The first letter is a demand letter for previously assessed balances due for income tax liabilities for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxable years and a $5,000.00 penalty for the 2017 taxable year.
The second letter is a Letter 1058 levy notice. This levy notice reflects assessed income tax liabilities for the 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 taxable years and assessed penalties for the 2010 and 2011 taxable years. The letter advised petitioner he had 30 days (until September 17, 2022) to submit a Collection Due Process (CDP) request to the IRS Independent Office of Appeals. This letter further indicates, in bold lettering, that petitioner would need to submit his CDP request by this date to preserve his "… rights to contest an Appeals decision in Tax Court."
Respondent's account transcripts reflect that petitioner did not submit a request for a CDP hearing by this deadline, nor has petitioner submitted a request as of the filing of this motion.
Because petitioner did not receive a notice of determination by the time he filed his petition on August 31st, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review any collection activity by respondent. See § 6330(d)(1).
And while petitioner attached to the petition and to his response to the Motion to Dismiss partial copies of statutory notices of deficiency he received for income tax liabilities he alleges are in dispute in this case, there is no evidence of any statutory notice that would as of the date of the petition convey jurisdiction on the Court. See §§ 6212, 6213.
The Court lacking jurisdiction to address the matters raised in the petitioner, it is hereby
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion for Continuance is denied, as moot.