Opinion
4005-23
06-09-2023
SYLVIA D. WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On February 23, 2023, petitioner filed the petition to commence this case, indicating therein that she seeks review of a notice of deficiency issued for her 2022 tax year. However, petitioner attached to the petition a copy of a notice of deficiency issued for her 2020 tax year. On April 7, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that, with respect to a notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2020 tax year, the petition was not filed within the time prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code. On April 18, 2023, respondent filed a First Supplement to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the grounds that, as to petitioner's 2022 tax year, no notice of deficiency was issued nor had respondent made any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. Although the Court provided petitioner the opportunity to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion to dismiss, as supplemented, petitioner has not done so.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. 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 depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day). Rule 13(a), (c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022); 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 (after petitioner has properly requested and received a collection due process hearing) under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 6320 or 6330 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. sec. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The record in this case establishes that, as to petitioner's 2020 tax year, the petition was not timely filed. Furthermore, petitioner has not produced or otherwise demonstrated that respondent issued any notice of deficiency, or made any other determination, as to petitioner's 2022 tax year that would confer jurisdiction upon this Court. Accordingly, the Court is obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. However, although petitioner cannot prosecute this case in this Court, petitioner is free to pursue an administrative resolution of petitioner's tax liability directly with the IRS.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, as supplemented, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.