Opinion
11905-24
09-18-2024
ADAM STREGE, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On July 20, 2024, petitioner filed the Petition to commence this case. Petitioner attached to the Petition no notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.
On September 11, 2024, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion to dismiss) on the grounds that no notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner, nor has respondent made any other determination, that would permit petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. On September 13, 2024, petitioner filed a document titled Objection to Response to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, which the Court will recharacterize as an Objection to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
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 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; Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 6213(a); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases); 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 under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330 (after petitioner has requested and received a collection due process hearing following the issuance of a notice of filing of federal tax lien, a final notice of intent to levy, or an analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under I.R.C. section 6330(f), such as a notice of levy on your State tax refund and notice of your right to a hearing) 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. §§ 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 under section 6015 (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.
The Petition, petitioner's objection to respondent's motion to dismiss, and other documents filed by petitioner are largely unintelligible. Accordingly, it is not clear to the Court what remedy petitioner seeks in this case. What is clear, however, is that petitioner has not produced any notice of deficiency, nor demonstrated that respondent made any other determination, sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. We are obliged, therefore, to dismiss this case for lack jurisdiction.
In view of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Objection to Response to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted is recharacterized as an 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. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Proceed Remotely and Motion for Leave to Use Electronic Equipment, both filed August 23, 2024, are denied as moot.