Opinion
7299-24S
07-17-2024
SYLVIA VALL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge.
The Petition to commence this case was filed on May 6, 2024. Petitioner indicates that she seeks review of a notice of determination concerning collection action and a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim (or failure of IRS to make final determination within 180 days after claim for abatement) with respect to her "2015 to 2019" tax years.
Currently pending before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss), filed June 17, 2024. As grounds for his motion, respondent asserts that (1) as to tax years 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019, respondent issued no notice of deficiency, nor made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court; (2) as to tax year 2016, other than a notice of deficiency, respondent made no determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court; and (3) as to the notice of deficiency issued to petitioner for her 2016 tax year, the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code.
On July 15, 2024, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Therein, petitioner expresses a general objection to respondent's motion to dismiss and discusses the merits of her claims. Otherwise, however, petitioner does not challenge any of the jurisdictional allegations asserted by respondent in his motion to dismiss.
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). 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 generally depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed Petition. See Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 6213(a); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988); see also Sanders v. Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 161 T.C., slip op. at 7-8 (Nov. 2, 2023) (holding that the Court will continue treating the deficiency deadline as jurisdictional in cases appealable to jurisdictions outside the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit). In this regard, and as relevant here, I.R.C. section 6213(a) provides that the petition must be filed with the Court within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after a valid notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). If a petition is timely mailed and properly addressed to the Tax Court in Washington, D.C., it will be considered timely filed. See I.R.C. §7502(a)(1). In order for the timely mailing/timely filing provision to apply, the envelope containing the petition must bear a postmark with a date that is on or before the last date for timely filing a petition. See I.R.C. § 7502(a)(2).
In a case seeking review of certain types of IRS collection activity, the Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of determination under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330 (after petitioner has requested and received a collection due process hearing following the issuance of a notice of filing of federal tax lien and/or a final notice of intent to levy) and the filing by the taxpayer of a petition concerning that IRS determination. Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 38 (2005); I.R.C. §§ 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Other IRS notices which may form the basis for a Tax Court petition, likewise under statutorily prescribed parameters, are a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015 (or failure of IRS to make determination within 6 months after election or request for relief); a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement claim (or failure of IRS to make final determination within 180 days after claim for abatement) under section 6404(h) (after petitioner has filed with the IRS a form 843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement); a notice of determination of worker classification; a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action; and a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent federal tax debt to the Department of State.
Here, the record reflects that a notice of deficiency, dated March 25, 2019, was issued to petitioner for her 2016 tax year. Based on that date, the 90-day period to file a Tax Court petition expired on June 24, 2019. As discussed above, the Petition to commence this case was filed on May 6, 2024. The Petition was received by the Court in an envelope bearing a postmark date of April 27, 2024. Thus the Petition in this case was not timely filed with respect to the notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2016 tax year. In addition, petitioner has not demonstrated that respondent made any other determination that would permit her to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as to her 2016 tax year. Finally, petitioner has not shown that respondent issued any notice of deficiency, or made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to her 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019 tax years.
While the Court is sympathetic to petitioner's circumstances, in view of the foregoing, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. However, although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner may still be able to pursue an administrative resolution of her 2015 through 2019 tax liabilities directly with the IRS. Petitioner may wish to contact the IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service for assistance.
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.