Opinion
10295-24
08-08-2024
ROBERT H. WEINFELD, 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 June 17, 2024. Petitioner indicates therein that he seeks review concerning a notice of deficiency issued for his 2023 tax year. Attached to the Petition is a copy of a Notice CP 30, informing petitioner that his refund was reduced due to the imposition of a penalty for failure to pay estimated taxes. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court is attached to Petition.
On August 5, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that no notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner, nor had respondent made any other determination, as to petitioner's 2023 tax year that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
On August 6, 2024, the Court received and filed petitioner's Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner states therein that this matter recently was satisfactorily resolved with the Internal Revenue Service and indicates that he no longer wishes to prosecute this case.
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. Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; 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). Similarly, in a case seeking review of certain 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 petition to the Tax Court, 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), 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.
I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related issues. As discussed above, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. As petitioner has not produced any notice of deficiency, nor demonstrated that respondent made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioner's 2023 tax year, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack jurisdiction.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Dismiss is denied. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.