Opinion
8108-21
09-15-2023
PHILIP A. SEYBOLDT Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Patrick J. Urda, Judge
This case is set for trial at the Court's Cleveland, Ohio trial session, scheduled to begin October 2, 2023. On September 11, 2023, the Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that there is no deficiency in income tax due from petitioner Philip A. Seyboldt for taxable year 2018 as defined by section 6211 and thus the notice of deficiency was not authorized by section 6212. Consequently, the Commissioner argues that there is no basis for a petition to this Court as required by section 6213(a) that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. The Commissioner's motion also stated that Mr. Seyboldt did not object to the granting of the motion.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., (I.R.C.) in effect at all relevant times and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
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 deficiency case, this Court's jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the filing of a timely petition. See Rule 13(a) and (c). Where a notice of deficiency is issued after the deficiency determined therein has been paid, the notice of deficiency is invalid and this Court lacks jurisdiction. See Estate of Crawford v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. 262, 266 (1966).
As indicated on his motion, the Commissioner issued Mr. Seyboldt an automated 30-day letter on October 19, 2020, which proposed an adjustment to his income tax liability for taxable year 2018. In response to the 30-day letter, Mr. Seyboldt made a payment to the IRS in the amount of $1,714. The notice of deficiency was issued without consideration of Mr. Seyboldt's payment.
Since Mr. Seyboldt's payment of $1,714 was made approximately two months prior to the Commissioner's issuance of the notice of deficiency and equaled the amount of the proposed deficiency for the 2018 tax year, the notice of deficiency in this case is invalid. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See Rule 13(a); Estate of Crawford, 46 T.C. at 266.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Commissioner's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, filed September 11, 2023, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.