Opinion
37866-21
04-21-2022
JAMES J. YEDLICK, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge.
On March 29, 2022, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on the ground no notice of determination under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330 or other notice of determination was issued to petitioner for taxable year 2018 that would confer jurisdiction upon the Court. Among other things, in support of his motion to dismiss, based upon a diligent search of respondent's records, respondent states he has determined that no notice of determination under section 6320 or 6330 or other notice of determination was issued to petitioner for 2018 that would confer jurisdiction upon the Court. On April 14, 2022, petitioner filed his Objection to respondent's motion to dismiss. On April 18, 2022, petitioner filed a First Supplement to his objection
The petition in this case was filed on December 29, 2021. Petitioner seeks review of a purported notice of determination concerning collection action of unspecified date allegedly issued with respect to tax year 2018. No notice of determination under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330 for 2018 was attached to that petition.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Congress. I.R.C. sec. 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). Where this Court's jurisdiction in a case is duly challenged, the jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown by the party seeking to invoke that jurisdiction. Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1980).
This Court's jurisdiction in a case seeking review of a determination concerning collection action under I.R.C. section 6320 or 6330 depends, in part, upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination by the IRS Office of Appeals. Secs. 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1); Rule 330(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Offiler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 492 (2000). A condition precedent to the issuance of a notice of determination is the requirement that a taxpayer have requested a hearing before the IRS Office of Appeals within the 30-day period specified in section 6320(a) or 6330(a), and calculated with reference to an underlying Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under 6320 and/or Final Notice of Intent To Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, or analogous post-levy notice of hearing rights under section 6330(f) (e.g., a Notice of Levy on Your State Tax Refund and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing).
In his above Objection, as supplemented, petitioner essentially does not dispute the jurisdictional allegations set forth in respondent's motion to dismiss. Rather, petitioner primarily asserts that he does not owe any 2018 tax liability. Contrary to petitioner's argument, however, I.R.C. section 7442 does not provide this Court with jurisdiction to review all tax-related matters. As discussed above, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent provided by statute. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 529; Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. at 66. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate and establish that the Court has jurisdiction in this case. Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. at 280; Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. at 280. The Court thus is obliged to grant respondent's motion to dismiss.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed March 29, 2022, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.