Opinion
9643-21
03-18-2022
CONNIE JEAN WELLS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Elizabeth A. Copeland Judge
This case is calendared for trial at a Regular Session of the Court beginning April 4, 2022, in Denver, Colorado. On March 17, 2021, Petitioner Connie Wells filed her petition with this Court. (Docket Index No. 1). Under the first numbered paragraph of her petition form, she checked two boxes for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) actions she was disputing for tax years 1970 through 2020: (1) Notice of Deficiency and (2) Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action. In the section of her petition form explaining why she disagreed (numbered paragraph 5) she stated that she had "[n]ever received a Notice of Deficiency or a Notice of Determination for years" 1970 through 2020, inclusive. She reiterated that point in paragraph 6, in explaining the facts upon which she relied. In a January 18, 2022, letter (Docket Index No. 9), Petitioner claimed that she was due a $157,115 refund from the IRS but provided no basis upon which such refund could be determined and plead no affirmative facts conferring jurisdiction of her refund claim with this Court.
On March 11, 2022, Respondent filed with the Court a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ("Motion to Dismiss") (Docket Index No. 10) requesting that this case be dismissed because, after a thorough search, no statutory notice of deficiency, pursuant to sections 6212 and 6213(a), had been sent to petitioner with respect to taxable years 1970 through 2020, nor had Respondent made any other determination with respect to those years that would confer jurisdiction upon this Court.
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated. All dollar amounts have been rounded to the nearest dollar.
On March 12, 2022, petitioner informally emailed Respondent and this Court's Chamber's Administrator a motion asking this Court for a default judgement against Respondent. However, Petitioner, like all taxpayers, must follow the Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure by conforming the content and form of her motion to Rule 50 and by formally filing her paper motion with the Clerk in Washington, D.C., pursuant to Rule 22. Therefore, before we can consider and rule on her motion, Petitioner must properly file it with the Court pursuant to the rules, which may be found on the Court's website at https://ustaxcourt.gov/rules.html.
We are a court of limited jurisdiction and may only exercise jurisdiction to the extent expressly authorized by Congress. Medeiros v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1255, 1259 (1981); Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1 (2006). Jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and Petitioner, as the party invoking our jurisdiction, has the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over her case. 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, Petitioner must affirmatively plead all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction. Id.
Because refund requests do not confer jurisdiction on this Court and because no notices of deficiency or determination have been produced by Petitioner for the tax years at issue, Petitioner must amend her petition to plead facts that prove the Court has jurisdiction to hear her claims. With regard to any stand-alone refund claims, Petitioner must follow the procedures for requesting such refunds. Because she is demanding taxes allegedly previously paid, she would request such refunds by filing Forms 843, Claim[s] for Refund and Request for Abatement, and, if those claims are denied or six months have passed without any determination from the IRS, she could then file a refund suit in the appropriate United States District Court or the United States Court of Federal Claims. See I.R.C. §§ 6532(a) and 7422.
As stated above, Respondent avers that no such notices exist, and Petitioner does not appear to dispute that fact.
Furthermore, throughout this litigation Petitioner has made many frivolous arguments in support of her demands. As Respondent stated in his motion to dismiss, this Court may sanction or apply penalties on taxpayers who abuse and waste this Court's time and resources: "[w]henever it appears to the Tax Court" that a taxpayer (1) institutes or maintains a proceeding primarily for delay; or (2) takes a frivolous or groundless position, "the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000." I.R.C. § 6673(a). If Petitioner continues to advance frivolous or groundless claims, the Court will consider whether such a sanction is appropriate.
With regard to Respondent's motion to dismiss, we will require Petitioner to respond, and attach thereto any notice she has from the IRS which would confer jurisdiction on this Court. We will likewise set Respondent's motion for hearing at Court's Denver, Colorado Calendar Call on April 4, 2022.
We remind Petitioner that free legal help is available for responding to this Order and assisting with her with her case by contacting the low-income taxpayer clinics in the area, namely:
University of Denver Graduate Tax Program LITC
2255 East Evans Avenue, #390
Denver, CO 80208
303-871-6331
litc@law.du.edu
Colorado Legal Services LITC
1905 Sherman St. #400
Denver, CO 80203
303-837-1321
http://applyonlinecls.org
After due consideration, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that on or before March 28, 2022, Petitioner shall serve on Respondent and file with the Court a response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction with evidence affirmatively proving this Court has jurisdiction over her claims. Failure to respond as required by this Order may be deemed consent to the relief sought in the motion. It is further
ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 11, 2022, is set for hearing at calendar call on April 4, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. ET, during the Court's Denver, Colorado Trial Session. Petitioner is advised that failure to comply with the terms of this Order or failure to appear at the hearing on April 4, 2022, may result in the Court granting Respondent's motion and entering an order and decision against Petitioner.