Opinion
16767-22
04-06-2023
LAWRENCE MIDDLETON & MARY MIDDLETON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On October 13, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Mary Middleton on the ground that no notice of deficiency was issued to her for tax year 2018, nor has respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner Mary Middleton for tax year 2018 that would confer jurisdiction on the Court.
On July 18, 2022, petitioners filed the petition purporting to dispute a notice of deficiency issued to petitioners for tax year 2018. Petitioners attached to the petition a copy of a notice of deficiency for tax year 2018 issued to petitioner Lawrence Middleton, but failed to attach a notice of deficiency issued to petitioner Mary Middleton.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. It may therefore exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In a case seeking the redetermination of a deficiency, the jurisdiction of the Court depends, in part, on the issuance by the Commissioner of a valid notice of deficiency to the taxpayer. Rule 13(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Frieling v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 42, 46 (1983). The notice of deficiency has been described as "the taxpayer's ticket to the Tax Court" because, without it, there can be no prepayment judicial review by this Court of the deficiency determined by the Commissioner. Mulvania v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 65, 67 (1983).
On February 13, 2023, petitioners filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Mary Middleton. In their Objection, petitioners state that they object to respondent's motion because they are married and filed a joint return for tax year 2018. Petitioners do not dispute the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion.
Unfortunately, while the Court may be sympathetic to petitioners' situation, petitioners' contention cannot provide a basis in these circumstances to allow Mary Middleton to remain a litigant in this case. The existence of a notice issued to a taxpayer permits participation as a named party in a Tax Court proceeding, not his or her status as married to or filing joint returns with another taxpayer.
Petitioners have not provided a copy of a notice of deficiency or notice of determination that would confer jurisdiction on this Court as to Mary Middleton. Because no notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court has been sent to petitioner Mary Middleton, this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to petitioner Mary Middleton.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Mary Middleton is granted and so much of this case relating to petitioner Mary Middleton is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that the caption in this case is amended to read: "Lawrence Middleton, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent".