Opinion
5911-24
09-17-2024
NATHANIEL WAUGH, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
This case is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed June 10, 2024. Therein, respondent moves that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency, nor any other determination that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in the case, has been issued to petitioner.
By Order served June 11, 2024, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion. On July 12, 2024, the Court received and filed petitioner's "Commencement of Disclosure Action," "Commencement of Whistle Blower Action," "Commencement of Lien and Levy Relief," and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. In view of these filings, we will deem petitioner to have timely objected to the granting of respondent's Motion. Nevertheless, for the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
On April 9, 2024, the Court received and filed the Petition to commence this case. Among other things, the Petition states that petitioner seeks to invoke our collection due process (CDP) jurisdiction under sections 6320(c) and 6330(d). However, no notice of determination concerning collection action, nor any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, is attached to the Petition, and it does not appear to identify the taxable year (or years) for which petitioner seeks review. A significant amount of the material contained in the Petition appears to bear no discernable relationship to the matters over which this Court may exercise jurisdiction.
All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
In response to the Petition, respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction pending before the Court. Although petitioner has made numerous submissions to the Court following the filing of respondent's Motion, petitioner has not to date produced a notice of deficiency, notice of determination concerning collection action, or any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.
Discussion
Like all federal courts, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Ramey v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 1, 11 (2021). We may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See § 7442; Ramey, 156 T.C. at 11. Where, as here, this Court's jurisdiction is duly challenged, 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 in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency. See §§ 6212, 6213; Rule 13(a); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 139-40 (2022). Because the issuance of a notice of deficiency is a 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).
Similarly, our jurisdiction in the CDP context depends in part upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination. See §§ 6320(c), 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b); Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8 (2004), aff'd, 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005); Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492, 498 (2000). It follows that when a valid notice of determination has not been issued to the taxpayer, we are obliged to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. See Offiler, 114 T.C. at 498; Mighty v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-44, slip op. at *2 n.2.
After receiving notice of respondent's jurisdictional allegations and being afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond, petitioner has failed to establish that he has been issued a notice of deficiency, notice of determination concerning collection action, or any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case. Moreover, our own review of the record reveals no indication that respondent has acted-or failed to act-in any manner that could support the Court's jurisdiction in this case.
To the extent petitioner's "Commencement of Disclosure Action" and "Commencement of Whistle Blower Action" filed on July 12, 2024, are an attempt to invoke this Court's jurisdiction under sections 6110(f)(3)(A) and 7623(b)(4), respectively, petitioner has also failed to carry his burden to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction under those sections (or any section for that matter).
We have considered all of petitioner's jurisdictional arguments, and, to the extent not addressed herein, we conclude that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of petitioner's filings in this case are incomprehensible, frivolous, or both. Consequently, as petitioner has failed to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction, we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. That being so, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion to Dismiss is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground stated in that Motion. It is further
ORDERED that all other pending motions and requests for relief in this case are moot.