TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Rick Beard
Docket Number: 518-09S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/11/2009
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 RICK BEARD, Petitione r V . Docket No . 518-09S . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it .i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the hearing of the above case before Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at Dallas, Texas, on December 1, 2009, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the hearing . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction will be entered . (Signed ) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . December 11, 200 9 SERVED Dec 15 2009 2 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . 2 Rick Bear d 3 Docket Number 518-09S December 1, 200 9 4 I . 5 THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT 6 AND OPINION IN THIS CASE, AND THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS 7 THE COURT'S ORAL FINDING OF FACT AND OPINION . 8 II . 9 This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Case 10 pursuant to the provisions of section 7463(f)(2) of the 11 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 12 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice an d 13 Procedure . See and compare Rules 330 through 334 of the 14 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 15 III . 16 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 17 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Interna l 18 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax 19 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 20 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, and unless 21 otherwise indicated, all section numbers refer to th e 22 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and all Rule 23 numbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 24 Procedure . 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 IV . 2 Natasha V . Chevalier appeared on behalf of 3 Respondent . There was no appearance by or on behalf of 3 4 Rick Beard ( petitioner) . 5 V . 6 By Notice dated and served on petitioner on 7 June 29, 2009 , this case was calendared for trial o n 8 November 30, 2009, in Dallas, Texas . However, on October 9 23, 2009, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack 10 of Jurisdiction . In the motion , respondent moves t o 11 dismiss this case on the ground that no notice o f 12 determination under section 6320 or 6330 was sent t o 13 petitioner for any of the taxable years in issue, nor has 14 respondent made any other determination with respect to 15 those years that would confer jurisdiction on the Court . 16 By Order dated and served on petitioner o n 17 October 30, 2009, the Court calendared respondent' s 18 motion for hearing at a time and date certain in Dallas, 19 Texas . 20 VI . 21 Because this Court may only hear and decide a 22 case on the merits if the Court has jurisdiction, th e 23 threshold issue for decision is necessarily whether the 24 Court has jurisdiction over any of the taxable years that 25 petitioner seeks to place in issue . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5. 4 1 VII . 2 The facts necessary to a resolution of 3 respondent's motion are as follows : 4 Petitioner resided in the State of Texas at 5 the time that the petition was filed with the Court . 6 On December 29, 2008, petitioner mailed a 7 petition to this Court, which petition was received and 8 filed by the Court on January 6, 2009 . In the petition, 9 petitioner references the taxable years 2000 throug h 10 2008 . The only documents that petitioner attached to the 11 petition as exhibits were copies of preliminar y 12 collection notices (i .e ., Notice Number CP-504) dated 13 November 3, 2008, involving petitioner's income ta x 14 liabilities for the taxable years 2000 through 2004 and 15 for the taxable years 2006 and 2007 . No collection 16 notice, preliminary or otherwise, for either the taxable 17 year 2005 or the taxable year 2008 was attached as a n 18 exhibit to the petition . 19 Paragraph 5 of the petition recites, in its 20 entirety, that "The determinations are unjust an d 21 unsubstantiated ." Paragraph 6 of the petition recites, 22 in its entirety, that "The case against me is not true 23 and contains some inaccuracies . " 24 As previously stated, respondent filed his 25 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on October 23, Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 2009 . In his motion, respondent contends that that thi s 2 case be dismissed on the ground-that "no notice o f 3 determination concerning collection action to form the 4 basis for a petition to this Court has been sent t o 5 petitioner with respect to taxable years 2000, 2001, 6 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, nor ha s 7 respondent made any other determination with respect to 8 those taxable years that would confer jurisdiction o n 9 this Court . " 10 VIII . 11 The Tax Court is a court of limite d 12 jurisdiction . See sec . 7442 . Accordingly, we may 13 exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressl y 14 authorized by statute . Breman v . Commissioner , 66 T .C . 15 61, 66 (1976) . In addition, jurisdiction must be proven 16 affirmatively, and a party invoking our jurisdictio n 17 bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction 18 over the party's case . See Fehrs v . Commissioner , 65 19 T .C . 346, 348 (1975) ;_ Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc . 20 21 v . Commissioner ; 35 T .C . 177, 180 (1960) ; Nationa l Committee to Secure Justice, etc ., v . Commissioner , 27 22 T .C . 837, 839 (1957) . In order to meet this burden, the 23 party must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise 24 to our jurisdiction . See Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, 25 Inc . v . Commissioner , supra at 180 ; Consolidated Company Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 Co . v . Commissioner , 15 B .T .A . 645, 651 (1929) . 2 In a collection review action, i .e ., a lien 3 or levy action, this Court's jurisdiction under sections 4 6320 and 6330 depends, in part, on the issuance of a 5 notice of determination by respondent's Appeals Office 6 after the taxpayer has requested an administrativ e 7 hearing following the issuance by respondent's collection 8 division of either a final notice of intent to levy, see 9 sec . 6330(a), or a notice of filing of Federal tax lien , 10 see sec . 6320(a) . See Sarrell v . Commissioner , 117 T .C . 11 122, 125 (2001) ; Moorhous v . Commissioner , 116 T .C . 263, 12 269 (2001) ; Offiler v . Commissioner , 114 T .C . 492, 498 13 (2000) ; see also Rule 330(b) . 14 IX . 15 In the present case, there is nothing in the 16 record to suggest, much less demonstrate, tha t 17 respondent's Appeals Office has issued a notice o f 18 determination for any of the taxable years 2000 through 19 2008 . Indeed, there is nothing in the record to suggest, 20 much less demonstrate, that respondent's collectio n 21 division has issued either a final notice of intent to 22 levy or a notice of filing of Federal tax lien . In this 23 regard, petitioner should understand that Notice Number 24 CP-504 is a preliminary collection notice and not a final 25 notice of intent to levy within the meaning of sectio n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 6330 . Simply stated, the petition in this case was 2 prematurely filed . 3 X . 4 In sum, we shall grant respondent's Motion to 5 Dismiss for Lack of jurisdiction , filed October 23, 2009, 6 on the ground that respondent ' s Appeals Office did no t 7 issues a notice of determination in respect of either a 8 final notice of intent to levy or a notice of Federal tax 9 lien filing for any of the taxable years that petitioner 10 seeks to place in issue . 11 XI . 12 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT ' S ORAL FINDINGS OF 13 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . 14 (Whereupon , at 10 :57 a .m ., the bench opinion 15 was concluded . ) 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888