Opinion
4021-24S
09-25-2024
STEWART T. OATMAN & SHIRLEY A. OATMAN, Petitioners 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 April 23, 2024. Therein, respondent moves that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no notice of deficiency, notice of determination concerning collection action, or other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case has been issued to petitioners. Petitioners oppose the Motion. For the reasons that follow, we must grant respondent's Motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Background
In the Petition filed to commence this case on March 11, 2024, petitioners indicate that they seek review of a notice of deficiency and notice of determination concerning collection action issued to them for the taxable year 2021. However, no notice of deficiency, notice of determination concerning collection action, or other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case is attached to the Petition. Instead, attached thereto are copies of (1) an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Letter 105C dated June 26, 2023, informing petitioners that a claim for credit for the taxable year 2021 has been disallowed, and (2) an IRS Notice CP503 dated February 26, 2024, informing petitioner Stewart Oatman of a past due amount for the taxable year 2021.
In response to the Petition, respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction pending before the Court. By Order served April 23, 2024, the Court directed petitioners to file an objection, if any, to the Motion. On May 13, 2024, the Court received and filed a letter dated May 5, 2024, by petitioner Stewart Oatman. Attached to the letter are a miscellany of documents (including copies of the aforementioned Letter 105C and Notice CP503); however, no notice of deficiency, notice of determination concerning collection, or other determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court in this case is among them. Nor does any such notice or determination otherwise appear 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.
All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and all 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, petitioners have failed to establish that they have 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, petitioners have failed to establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction, and we must dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion to Dismiss is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the above-stated ground.