Opinion
10056-23
02-14-2024
TRAVIS RAY THOMPSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On June 16, 2023, the Court received and filed the Petition in the above-docketed matter. In the Petition, petitioner (1) checked a box indicating that he is seeking review of a Notice of Certification of Your Seriously Delinquent Federal Tax Debt to the Department of State (notice of certification) for taxable years 2020, 2021, and 2022, and (2) alleged that he is entitled to economic impact payments. The Petition has several attachments, none of which is a notice of certification or any other notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.
The attachments to the Petition are as follows: (1) State of California Office of Tax Appeals OTA, Form L-04, REQUEST FOR SUBPOENA; (2) Form 3911, Taxpayer Statement Regarding Refund; (3) petitioner's Letter dated July 19, 2022; (4) IRS Letter 96C acknowledging receipt of petitioner's correspondence received April 14, 2022; (5) petitioner's "Offender Personal Profile"; (6) IRS Letter 324C acknowledging receipt of amended return received December 23, 2021; (7) IRS Letter 131C requesting more information to answer petitioner's inquiry dated August 5, 2021, with petitioner's August 5, 2021 inquiry letter; (8) copy of petitioner's 2020 Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return; (9) copy of petitioner's 2019 Form 1040X; and (10) State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Notice of Data Breach.
On July 13, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground that no statutory notice of certification, as required by section 7345(d) and (e) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, has been sent to petitioner with respect to taxable years 2020, 2021 and/or 2022, nor has respondent made any other determination with respect to those taxable years that would confer jurisdiction on this Court. Petitioner filed an Objection and a First Supplement thereto, respectively, on August 7 and August 22, 2023. Respondent filed a Response on August 30, 2023, and petitioner filed a Reply on September 18, 2023.
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. See § 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). 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.
In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, our jurisdiction depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. See §§ 6212 and 6213; Rule 13(a) and (c); Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3d 1082, 1092 (9th Cir. 2020); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130 n.4 (2022) (collecting cases). Jurisdiction under section 7345(e), involving revocation or denial of a passport, rests on the issuing to the taxpayer of a notice of certification of a seriously delinquent Federal tax debt to the State Department and the filing of a petition by the taxpayer.
Respondent contends that no notice of certification or notice of deficiency has been issued to petitioner for 2020, 2021, and/or 2022. In his Objection, as supplemented, and Reply, petitioner clarifies that he is seeking review of a purported notice of deficiency rather than a notice of certification. However, respondent denies the issuance of a notice of deficiency for 2020, 2021, and/or 2022, and petitioner has not attached a notice of deficiency to any of the documents he has filed with the Court. As stated above, petitioner bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over this case. Because petitioner has not produced a notice sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
To the extent petitioner may be seeking a refund, the Tax Court is not the proper court in which to file a lawsuit challenging the IRS's denial of a claim for refund. A taxpayer may seek a judicial remedy for wrongful denial of claims for refund-i.e., a refund suit in compliance with I.R.C. sections 6532(a)(1) and 7422(a)- only in the United States Court of Federal Claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), or in Federal district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). Those statutes do not confer refund jurisdiction on the Tax Court.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.