Opinion
24071-22
07-14-2023
G. GREGORY WILLIAMS & PLERNPIT POLPANTU D.B.A. XIAM BEER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On October 26, 2022, petitioners filed the petition to commence this case, indicating therein that they seek review of a notice of deficiency issued for their 2019 tax year. Petitioners attached to the petition a partial copy of a notice of deficiency, dated August 12, 2022, issued only to petitioner Plernpit Polpantu for her 2019 tax year.
On November 25, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to the Taxable Year 2019 for G. Gregory Williams on the grounds that no notice of deficiency was issued, nor had respondent made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court as to petitioner G. Gregory Williams' 2019 tax year.
On December 27, 2022, petitioners filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to the Taxable Year 2019 for G. Gregory Williams, citing therein various cases and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which have little or no bearing on the question of this Court's jurisdiction with respect to Mr. Williams. Petitioners attached to their objection no notice of deficiency or notice of determination that would permit Mr. Williams to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in this case. On January 24, 2023, petitioners filed a Request for Entry of Default against respondent.
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 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; Hallmark Research 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.
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 (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.
Although provided an opportunity to do so, petitioners have not produced or otherwise demonstrated that Mr. Williams was issued any notice of deficiency, or that respondent made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to Mr. Williams' 2019 tax year. This Court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction in this case with respect to Mr. Williams, and we are obliged to dismiss so much of this case relating to Mr. Williams.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted in that so much of this case relating to petitioner G. Gregory Williams is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that the caption of this case is amended to read: "Plernpit Polpantu, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent". It is further
ORDERED that, to the extent there is a request for relief in petitioners' Request for Entry of Default, that request is denied.