Opinion
9879-23
10-11-2023
ANTHONY L. WILLIAMS & ADELINA B. WILLIAMS, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On June 12, 2023, petitioners filed the petition to commence this case, indicating that with respect to tax years 2016 through 2021 they seek review of a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under [Internal Revenue Code] section 6015 (or failure of IRS to make determination within 6 months after election or claim for relief) relating to innocent spouse relief. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court is attached to the petition.
On August 8, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the grounds that no notice of deficiency was issued, nor has respondent made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court as to petitioners' 2016 through 2021 tax years. On August 28, 2023, petitioners filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Thereafter, on October 10, 2023, respondent responded to petitioners' objection.
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; Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2020); 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.
In their objection to respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioners essentially do not address respondent's jurisdictional allegations. Rather, petitioners focus on relating the details of their dispute with the IRS with respect to their tax liabilities for tax years 2016 through 2021. It appears petitioners filed this case after becoming frustrated about having failed to achieve a satisfactory resolution related to those liabilities. No notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court is attached to petitioners' petition or objection. Nor do petitioners indicate that, after filing a claim for innocent spouse relief under I.R.C. section 6015 or a claim for abatement of interest, the IRS has failed to make a determination within the time required for such determinations. Petitioners did attach to their objection a number of Forms 843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement, dated March 29, 2023, that they apparently have filed with respect to their Form 1040 tax liabilities for 2016 through 2021. However, the Tax Court is not the proper court in which to file a lawsuit with respect to a claim for refund or abatement such as petitioners'. A taxpayer may seek a judicial remedy for wrongful denial of claims for refund-i.e., a refund suit in compliance with Internal Revenue Code sections 6532(a)(1) and 7422(a)-only in the United States Court of Federal Claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1491(a)(1), or in Federal district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346(a)(1).
I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters. As discussed above, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. As petitioners have not produced or otherwise demonstrated that they have been issued any notice of deficiency, or that respondent has made any other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, we lack jurisdiction and cannot reach the merits of petitioners' case.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Response, filed October 10, 2023, is recharacterized as a Response to Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. 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.