Opinion
17591-23
07-30-2024
ALICE C. WILLIAMS, 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 December 19, 2023. By the Motion, 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, has been issued to petitioner for the taxable years 2019, 2020, and 2021. Petitioner opposes the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
On November 6, 2023, the Court received and filed the Petition to commence this case. Therein, petitioner indicates that she seeks review of notice(s) of deficiency and notice(s) of determination concerning collection action issued to her for the taxable years 2019, 2020, and 2021. However, no such notice, nor any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, is attached to the Petition.
In response to the Petition, respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss pending before the Court. The Court thereafter directed petitioner, by Order served December 21, 2023, to file an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion.
On January 17, 2024, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. No notice of deficiency, notice of determination concerning collection action, or other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court is attached to petitioner's Objection, and no such notice or determination otherwise appears in the record to date.
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.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
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). Indeed, 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 collection due process 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 she 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. Consequently, petitioner has failed to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction, and we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. That being so, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the above-stated ground.