§7442 — Jurisdiction

Petitioners distinguish Greene-Thapedi on the ground that a portion ofthe liability for the tax year remains unpaid. B. Analysis The Tax Court is a court oflimitedjurisdiction, and we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Cöngress. See sec. 7442; Greene-Thapedi v.

However, we need not decide whether Rev.

- 25 - [*25] confined to the year that is the subject ofthe notice that gave rise to that petition.42 The Court may consider the tax for other years but only to the extent necessary to redetermine the amount ofthe deficiency petitioned.43 Therefore, the Court is vested with thejurisdiction to consider Mr.

7442 provides: "The Tax Court and its divisions shall have such jurisdiction as is conferred on them by this title, by chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1939, by title II and title III ofthe Revenue Act of 1926 (44 Stat.

Regs., we hold that the regulation is not unreasonable or plainly inconsistent with section 6330.4 To the contrary, the regulation is consistent 4 Although the regulation provides guidance to taxpayers that accurately describes the procedures the Internal Revenue Service may follow, it is for this Court rather th

t stipulation to the contrary, this case is appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See § 7482(b)(1)(G)(ii), (2). 4 Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 269 (2000) (and cases cited thereat), aff’d, 22 F. App’x 837 (9th Cir. 2001); see § 7442. This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers. Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987); Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420 (1943). “Whether we have jurisdiction to decide a ma

7442; see also Estate of Meyer v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 560, 562 (1985); Adams v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 81, 84 (1979), affd. without published opinion 688 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1982). Because petitioner has not established that we have jurisdiction to review these claims, we do not consider this issue. 2. Amendment of Petition To Raise Post-Trial

7442; Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420-422 (1943); Medeiros v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1255, 1259 (1981). In a deficiency action, our jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commi

7442; Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420-422 (1943); Medeiros v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1255, 1259 (1981). In a deficiency action, our jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commi

See § 7442; 3 [*3] Kasper v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 37, 40 (2011); Judge v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180–81 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). We have no authority to enlarge upon that statutory grant. McCrory v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 90, 93 (2021). We nevertheless have jurisdiction to determine whether we have jurisdiction.

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180–81 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also Rules 13(a) and (b), 320(b). There are three jurisdictional bases for the Court to review a taxpayer’s entitlement to section 6015 relief. See Maier v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 267, 270–71 (2002), aff’d, 360 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 2004).

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). The Court nevertheless has authority to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a particular case. See Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984); Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984); Phillips v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-44,

§ 7442; Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In the normal course, under section 6330(d)(1), a taxpayer 3 Although Mr. Aiello’s petition referenced his 2014 tax year, we previously dismissed the case as it relates to that year because he failed to show any notice of deficiency or notice of determination sufficient to confer jurisdi

Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In the normal course, under section 6330(d)(1), a taxpayer may petition this Court to review a notice of determination concerning a collection action under section 6320 or 6330 within 30 days of such a determination. The 30-day deadline for filing such a petition is a procedural requirement tha

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180–81 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also Rules 13(a) and (b), 320(b). Pursuant to section 6015(e), as applicable in this case, this Court has jurisdiction to review a stand-alone petition when the taxpayer files a petition no later than the close of the 90th day after the

Section 7442 alone does not vest the Tax Court with any jurisdiction. Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 136 (2022). Section 6226 grants the Tax Court, the appropriate U.S. district court, and the Court of Federal Claims, the authority to redetermine adjustments of partnership items. And section 6226(a) and (b) imposes separat

Commissioner, 156 T.C. 90, 93 (2021). The D.C. Circuit has held that, if the IRS proceeds with administrative action against a tar- get identified by a whistleblower and the WBO declines to grant an award despite recovery of proceeds, the whistleblower may petition our Court for review of the WBO’s determination, and we have juri

§ 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). 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 I.R.C. §§ 6212 and 6213; Sanders v. Commissioner, 161 T.C. 112, 119–20 (2023); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissione

§ 7442; see also Commissioner v. Zuch, 145 S. Ct. 1707, 1712 (2025); Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). “This Court’s jurisdiction in a deficiency case is predicated on a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition.” Cano v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-65, at *3; see als

Commissioner, 156 T.C. 90, 93 (2021). If, as in this case, the IRS proceeds with administrative action against a target identified by a whistleblower and the WBO declines to grant an award, then the whis- tleblower may petition our Court for review of the WBO’s determination, and we have jurisdiction to review the determination.

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180–81 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also Rules 13(b), 320(b). Pursuant to section 6015(e), we have jurisdiction to review a stand-alone petition for innocent spouse relief when the taxpayer files a petition no later than the close of the 90th day after the Commissioner ma

§ 7442; Judge v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180–81 (1987). And of course, the Tax Court has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction. Bongam v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 52, 54 (2016); Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). Section 6015(e)(1)(A) confers jurisdiction on this Court to review a petition for innocent spouse

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The Tax Court has jurisdiction to redetermine a taxpayer’s deficiency for a particular year only if the notice of deficiency issued to the taxpayer determined a deficiency for the year and the petition seeks a redetermination for that year. Rule 13(a), (c); §§ 6212, 6213. Under section 6214(a

§ 7442; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 135 (2022); Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). We are without authority to enlarge upon that statutory grant. McCrory v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 90, 93 (2021). Nevertheless, we always have jurisdiction to determine whether we have jurisdiction over a case. Cooper v.

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In a deficiency case, our jurisdiction is predicated on a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. See §§ 6212–6214; Dees v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 1, 3–4 (2017); see also Sanders v. Commissioner, 9 [*9] No. 15143-22, 161 T.C. (Nov. 2, 2023); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commi

Section 7442 broadly defines the Court’s jurisdiction: Sec. 7442. Jurisdiction. The Tax Court and its divisions shall have such jurisdiction as is conferred on them by this title, by chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, by title II and title III of the Revenue Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 10-87), or by laws enacted subsequent to F

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In a collection due process case our jurisdiction is predicated upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination. See LG Kendrick, LLC v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 17, 28–29 (2016), aff’d, 684 F. App’x 744 (10th Cir. 2017). As we determined in Mukhi, 162 T.C., slip op. at 9–10, respondent is

In a deficiency case our jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency is mailed (not counting as the last day Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the Dis

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Our deficiency jurisdiction depends on a valid Notice of Deficiency and a timely filed petition. See §§ 6212–6214; Sanders v. Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 161 T.C. (Nov. 2, 2023); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022); Dees v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 1, 3–4 (2017). Peti

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In a CDP case our jurisdiction is predicated upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination. See LG Kendrick, LLC v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 17, 28 (2016), aff’d, 684 F. App’x 744 (10th Cir. 2017). A valid notice of determination is “a written notice that embodies a determination to proc

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Where this Court’s jurisdiction is duly challenged, as here, 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 F. App’x 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 6

§ 7442; Judge v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180–81 (1987). And of course the Tax Court has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction. Bongam v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 52, 54 (2016); Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). Section 6015(e)(1)(A) confers jurisdiction on this Court to review a petition for innocent spouse

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). We nevertheless have jurisdiction to determine whether we have jurisdiction. See Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984); Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). In a case seeking redetermination of a deficiency, our jurisdiction depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of de

§ 3711(g)(1), (4); see also 31 U.S.C.

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The Court’s jurisdiction may be challenged by either party, or by the Court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceeding. See Smith v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 10, 13–14 6 Respondent concedes that the accuracy-related penalties “are not applicable in this case.” Petitioner concedes that he receive

§ 7442; Estate of Young v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 881 (1983). We therefore conclude that we Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Helen Hershkoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3659, Westlaw (database updated April 2022). 18 do not have jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of the Secretary of State’s passport actions under section

See § 7442; Menard, Inc. v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 54, 59 (2008), rev’d on other grounds, 560 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2009). Petitioner invoked our jurisdiction by filing a petition under section 6213(a) for the redetermination of deficiencies. Even without the benefit of specific statutory authority, we have jurisdiction to consider our own jurisdiction. E

Furthermore, like other courts, we always have jurisdiction to determine whether we have jurisdiction. See Meserve Drilling Partners, Reg’l Res., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-72, 71 T.C.M. (CCH) 2146, 2147, aff’d, 152 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 1998). The Tax Court has jurisdiction over a TEFRA partnership-level proceeding when the

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180–81 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also Rules 13(a) and (b), 320(b). Pursuant to section 6015(e), this Court has jurisdiction to review a stand-alone petition when the taxpayer files a petition no later than the close of the 90th day after the Commissioner has issued a f

ress. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); Kelley v. Commissioner, 45 F.3d 348, 351 (9th Cir. 1995), aff’g T.C. Memo. 1990-158; Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also § 7442. The Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers. Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987); Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420 (1943). Whether we have jurisdiction to decide a mat

Of course, we always have jurisdiction to determine whether we have jurisdiction. 3 A Preliminary Award Recommendation Under Section 7623(a) and the associated Summary Report provided to Ms. McCrory on March 16, 2022, similarly listed all seven claim numbers, provided a single preliminary award amount, and did not analyze the claims individ

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). If the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to consider an issue, then the Court may not decide the issue. Naftel, 85 T.C. at 530. The Court always has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction. Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998) (citing Wheeler’s Peachtree

527, 529 (1985) (first citing section 7442; and then citing Commissioner v.

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Where this Court’s jurisdiction is duly challenged, as here, 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 F. App’x 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Fehrs v. Commissioner, 6

& Subs. v. Commissioner, 663 F.3d 181, 187 (3d Cir. 2011), vacating 122 T.C. 88 (2004). We are authorized to redetermine the amount of a deficiency for a taxable period for which the Commissioner has issued a notice of deficiency and the taxpayer has timely petitioned for review. See §§ 6212–6214; Rule 13(a); Monge v. Commission

See § 7442; Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 135 (2022); Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). Jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a taxpayer invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the case. See 3 [*3] David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270

§ 7442; Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230, 235 (2016); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Our jurisdiction in deficiency cases is predicated on a valid notice of deficiency and a timely petition. I.R.C. §§ 6213, 7442; Rules 13, 20; Dees v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 1, 3–4 (2017). The Court cannot extend the deadline for filin

ress. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); Kelley v. Commissioner, 45 F.3d 348, 351 (9th Cir. 1995), aff’g T.C. Memo. 1990-158; Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also § 7442. Jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and petitioner bears the bur- den of proving all facts necessary to establish our jurisdiction. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 269–70 (2000), aff’d, 22 F. App’x 837 (9th

Commissioner, No. 15143-22, 161 T.C., slip op. at 3–4 (Nov. 2, 2023); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 135 (2022). Jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a taxpayer invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the case. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commis

Id.; see also I.R.C.

§ 7442; Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230, 235 (2016); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Our jurisdiction in deficiency cases is predicated on a valid notice of deficiency and a timely petition. I.R.C. §§ 6213, 7442; Rules 13, 20; Dees v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 1, 3–4 (2017). Under section 6213(a), a petition must be file

§ 7442; Willson v. Commissioner, 805 F.3d 316, 319–20 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230, 235 (2016). We are “without authority to enlarge upon that statutory grant.” McCrory v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 90, 93 (2021) (citing Phillips Petroleum Co. & Affiliated Subs. v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 885, 888 (1989)). The party see

Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). We, however, have the authority to determine whether we have jurisdiction over a particular case. Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). Generally, we have jurisdiction under section 7436(a) to determine: (1) whether an individual providing services to a person is that person’s employ

Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). We, however, have the authority to determine whether we have jurisdiction over a particular case. Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). Generally, we have jurisdiction under section 7436(a) to determine: (1) whether an individual providing services to a person is that person’s employ

Commis- sioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). Jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and petitioner, as the party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, bears the burden of proving that the Court has jurisdiction. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff’d, 22 F. App’x 837 (9th Cir. 2001). Under section

See § 7442; Burns, Stix Friedman & Co. v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 392, 396 (1971). It has only the jurisdiction which is conferred on it by statute. Burns, Stix Friedman & Co., 57 T.C. at 396; see also § 7442. But the Tax Court’s lack of jurisdiction does not necessarily mean that a taxpayer lacks any opportunity for judicial review. This Court addressed

Id.; see also I.R.C.

§ 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). In deficiency proceedings such as this case, our jurisdiction does not extend to interest imposed by section 6601. Lincir v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 293, 298 (2000), aff’d, 32 F. App’x 278 (9th Cir. 2002). In limited circumstances that are

grant to the Tax Court for deficiency cases. The Tax Court may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). 1. A general description of the Tax Court’s jurisdiction appears in section 7442. Congress has described the jurisdiction of the Tax Court in section 7442, which provides: Sec. 7442. Jurisdiction. The Tax Court and its divisions shall have such jurisdiction as is conferred on them by this title, by chapters 1, 2, 3,

7442; Ruesch v. Commission- er, 154 T.C. 289, 294 (2020). In a CDP case such as this, our jurisdiction depends on the issuance of a notice of determination following a timely request for a CDP hearing and the filing of a timely petition for review. Sec. 6330(d)(1); Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8, 11-12 (2004), aff’d, 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir

ing division independently reviewed the claim against taxpayer 1. However, we are a “court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress.” Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see sec. 7442. Section 7623, as it stands, does not confer on us jurisdiction to review the audit decisions of IRS operating divisions. As we explained in Lacey: The IRS and not the Tax Court decides whether and how to audit a taxpayer’s return, and sect

7442; see also Cupp v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 68, 84 (1975), aff’d, 559 F.2d 1207 (3d Cir. 1977); Hawkins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-181. The constitutional issues in this case arise out of the definition of the taxable portion of Social Security benefits under section 86, and therefore, we have jurisdiction to review this constitutional

Our - 8 - [*8] jurisdiction in CDP cases generally does not permit us to consider matters regarding years that are not the subject of the collection action before us. We may, however, consider facts and issues from other years to the extent they “are relevant in evaluating a claim that an unpaid tax has been paid.” Freije v. Commissione

7442; Whistleblower 21276-13W v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. at ___ (slip op. at 9). Of course, we always have jurisdiction to determine whether we have jurisdiction. Cooper v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 70, 73 (2010). As discussed above, section 6330(d)(1) grants us jurisdiction to review a determination made by IRS Appeals under section 6330. We have

days of the mailing of a valid FPAA by the Commissioner.31 We have jurisdiction over this matter. Generally, the Commissioner’s determinations in a notice of deficiency or an FPAA are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of showing 29Sec. 7442; Estate of Young v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 880-881 (1983). 30Secs. 6212, 6213, and 6214; Rule 13. 31Sec. 6226(a)(1), (f). - 44 - [*44] otherwise.32 Neither party alleges that we should shift the burden of proof, nor do the facts support

r. Shitrit’s challenge to the underlying liability and his refund claim. Section 7345 does not give us jurisdiction to consider either claim. As an initial matter the Tax Court may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress, see sec. 7442; Wright v. Commissioner, 571 F.3d 215, 219 (2d Cir. 2009), vacating in part and remanding T.C. Memo. 2006-273; Estate of Young v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 881 (1983), and lacks “authority to enlarge upon that statutory grant”, Kasper v. C

7442; Medeiros v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1255, 1259 (1981). The Code is interspersed with grants of jurisdiction. Sections 6320(c) and 6330(d)(1) provide for judicial review of an adverse CDP determination. See Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 37 (2000). Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction in this case pursuant to sections 6320(c) and 6330

its deductions. See supra pp. 76-79. 1. Jurisdiction Before we can determine whether the Ryders and Ryder Ranch can claim these deductions, we must decide the threshold question of our jurisdiction. The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, sec. 7442, and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Congress, Gray v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 295, 298 (2012). We have jurisdiction to determine the tax liability of an individual taxpayer if and only if the Commissione

Section 6330(d)(1) provides that this Court has jurisdiction to review an Appeals determination.

7442; GAF Corp. & 8 This adjustment is identical to the adjustment proposed in the May-15 RAR. Unlike the May-15 RAR, the February-17 RAR did not allow petitioners a prior year minimum tax credit that they had never claimed, resulting in a larger deficiency. 9 Sec. 6603(a) permits taxpayers to “make a cash deposit with the Secretary which may

7442; see Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Section 6330(d)(1) grants this Court jurisdiction to review a timely petition challenging the Commissioner’s notice of determination to sustain a collection action. See Callahan v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 44, 48 (2008). Because petitioner filed a timely petition challenging respondent’s

7442; Ruesch v. Commission- er, 154 T.C. 289, 294 (2020). We are “without authority to enlarge upon that statu- tory grant.” Kasper v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 37, 40 (2011). Petitioner’s motion requires that we decide whether we have jurisdiction, at this stage of the proceed- ings, to redetermine interest. - 15 - [*15] We generally lack juris

its deductions. See supra pp. 76-79. 1. Jurisdiction Before we can determine whether the Ryders and Ryder Ranch can claim these deductions, we must decide the threshold question of our jurisdiction. The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, sec. 7442, and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Congress, Gray v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 295, 298 (2012). We have jurisdiction to determine the tax liability of an individual taxpayer if and only if the Commissione

its deductions. See supra pp. 76-79. 1. Jurisdiction Before we can determine whether the Ryders and Ryder Ranch can claim these deductions, we must decide the threshold question of our jurisdiction. The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, sec. 7442, and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Congress, Gray v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 295, 298 (2012). We have jurisdiction to determine the tax liability of an individual taxpayer if and only if the Commissione

its deductions. See supra pp. 76-79. 1. Jurisdiction Before we can determine whether the Ryders and Ryder Ranch can claim these deductions, we must decide the threshold question of our jurisdiction. The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, sec. 7442, and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Congress, Gray v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 295, 298 (2012). We have jurisdiction to determine the tax liability of an individual taxpayer if and only if the Commissione

its deductions. See supra pp. 76-79. 1. Jurisdiction Before we can determine whether the Ryders and Ryder Ranch can claim these deductions, we must decide the threshold question of our jurisdiction. The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, sec. 7442, and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Congress, Gray v. Commissioner, 138 T.C. 295, 298 (2012). We have jurisdiction to determine the tax liability of an individual taxpayer if and only if the Commissione

7442; Wagstaffv. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-114, at *5-*6. - 27 - [*27] 2008 case contains nothing more than a petition, an answer, and a stipulated decision. Settlements generally don't collaterally estop parties from litigating the same issue again. See United States v. Intl. Bldg. Co., 345 U.S. 502, 506 (1953) (holding that there is no

7442; see also GA Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000). We havejurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency ifa valid notice ofdeficiency is issued by the Commissioner and ifa timely petition is filed by the taxpayer. GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 521. Respondent does not dispute the timeliness ofthe petition. H

7442; Burns, Stix Friedman & Co. v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 392, 396 (1971). We have only thejurisdiction which is conferred on us by statute. Burns, Stix Friedman & Co. v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. at 396; see also sec. 7442. As a result, we lack general equitable powers. Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987). To the extent petitioner dispute

7442; GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000). We havejurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency ifthe Commissioner issues a valid notice ofdeficiency - 16 - [*16] and the taxpayer files a timely petition. GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 521. Petitioner argues that respondent erroneously determined that TEFRA

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). This Court'sjurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance ofa valid notice ofdeficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner,

Commis- sioner, 571 F.3d 215, 219 (2d Cir. 2009); Estate ofYoung v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 881 (1983). We are "without authorityto enlarge upon that statutory grant." Kasper v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 37, 40 (2011). Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction requires that we determine whether we havejuris- dictio

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also Rules 13, 320(b). With respect to claims for relieffrom joint and several liability, the Court has threejurisdictional bases for reviewing a claim: (1) as an affirmative defense in a deficiency redetermination proceeding pursu

7442; Estate ofYoung v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 881 (1983). In a CDP case such as this, ourjurisdiction depends on the issuance ofa notice ofdetermination following a timely request for a CDP hearing and the filing ofa timely petition for review. Sec. 6330(d)(1); Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8, 11-12 (2004), a_f[d, 412 F.3d 819 (7th Ci

7442; Naftel v. - 7 - [*7] Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The Court'sjurisdiction under sections 6320 and 6330 depends upon the issuance ofa valid notice of determination and the filing ofa timely petition for review ofthe notice of determination. Secs. 6320(c), 6330(d)(1); see also Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8 (2004), M, 412 F

7442; Estate ofYoung v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 881 (1983). In a CDP case such as this, ourjurisdiction depends on the issuance ofa notice ofdetermination following a timely request for a CDP hearing and the filing ofa timely petition for review. Sec. 6330(d)(1); Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8, 11-12 (2004), a_ff'd, 412 F.3d 819 (7th C

7442; Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987); Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230, 235 (2016). We havejurisdiction to determine ourjurisdiction over a particular case. LG Kendrick, LLC v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 17, 27 (2016), M, 684 F. App'x 744 (10th Cir. 2017); Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). Our jurisdiction in a de

7442;¹ Estate ofYoung v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 881 (1983). But we always have ¹All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, unless otherwise indicated. - 5 - jurisdiction to determine whether we havejurisdiction. Cooper v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 70, 73 (2010). We have deficiencyjurisdiction--ju

ongress. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); Kelley v. Commissioner, 45 F.3d 348, 351 (9th Cir. 1995), § T.C. Memo. 1990-158; Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442. The Court is a court oflimitedjurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers. Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987); Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420 (1943). Whether we havejurisdiction to decide a matt

An available credit from another year is a fact that may affect the taxpayer's correct liability for 4(...continued) payment was properly credited to the taxpayer's account for a particular tax year is not a challenge to his underlying tax liability); see also Orian v.

With respect to nondiscretionary (i.e., manda- tory) whistleblower awards, section 7623(b)(4) provides that "[a]ny determination regarding an award * * * may, within 30 days ofsuch detenmination, be appealed to the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall havejurisdiction with respect to such matter)." In order to decide whether we havejurisdiction, we must consider whether the IRS has made a "determination re

ongress. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); Kelley v. Commissioner, 45 F.3d 348, 351 (9th Cir. 1995), § T.C. Memo. 1990-158; Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442. The Court is a court oflimitedjurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers. Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987); Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420 (1943). Whether we havejurisdiction to decide a matt

7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985) ("It is well settled that the Tax Court is a court oflimitedjurisdiction, and * * * [it] may exercise * * * [its] jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress."). Ifthe Court does not havejurisdiction to consider an issue, then despite a party's choice ofthe Tax Court as a forum t

Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14, 25 (2005). Ordinarily, once the Commissioner concedes that there is no unpaid liability left to be collected, the collection proceeding is moot. See Greene- Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 7 (2006). The record reflects, and respondent concedes in his motion, that petitioners' tax liability for 20

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976); see also Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 422 (1943) ("The Internal Revenue Code, not general equitable principles, is the mainspring ofthe * * * [Court's]jurisdiction."). However, we havejurisdiction in any case to

fe Ins. Co. ofAm., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). That means that the Court's power to resolve cases is limited to the power conferred on it by statute. See Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 529; see also sec. 7442. The standard ofreview refers to the degree ofdeference given to an agency when a court reviews the agency's decision. See Citizens' Comm. to -29- [*29] Save Our Canyons v. U.S. Forest Serv., 297 F.3d 1012, 1021 (10th Cir. 2002). The scope

7442; see a_lso GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000); Henry - 19 - [*19] Randolph Consulting v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 1, 4 (1999); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Ourjurisdiction to redetermine the amount ofa deficiency is premised on the issuance ofa valid notice ofdeficiency followed by a timely fili

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). When ajurisdic- tional question is raised, we must address it before deciding the case. Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006). ¹²The relevant docket numbers are 6411-07 (PMG), 6413-07 (PAI), 6414-07 (PERC), 6499-07 (PAQ), and 6593-07 (PACE). - 34 - [*34] This Court generally h

7442; see a_lso GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000); Henry - 19 - [*19] Randolph Consulting v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 1, 4 (1999); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Ourjurisdiction to redetermine the amount ofa deficiency is premised on the issuance ofa valid notice ofdeficiency followed by a timely fili

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). We havejurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in income, estate, gift, or certain excise taxes when the Commissioner issues to a taxpayer a notice of deficiency that reflects a deficiency in respect ofany ofthose taxes and the taxpayertimely

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). When ajurisdic- tional question is raised, we must address it before deciding the case. Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006). ¹²The relevant docket numbers are 6411-07 (PMG), 6413-07 (PAI), 6414-07 (PERC), 6499-07 (PAQ), and 6593-07 (PACE). - 34 - [*34] This Court generally h

The Tax Court is grantedjurisdiction to determine partnership items and make partnership-level determinations as to penalties. Sec. 6226(a)(1), (f). Section 6226(f) limits the scope ofreview in a partnership-level proceeding to "all partnership items ofthe partnership for the partnership taxable year to which the notice offinal partnersh

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). When ajurisdic- tional question is raised, we must address it before deciding the case. Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006). ¹²The relevant docket numbers are 6411-07 (PMG), 6413-07 (PAI), 6414-07 (PERC), 6499-07 (PAQ), and 6593-07 (PACE). - 34 - [*34] This Court generally h

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Even ifsuch a claim were properly before this Court and were allowed or undisputed by respondent, it would neither affect the validity ofthe underlying tax liabilities nor serve to offset them. S_e_e Morrow v. United States, 723 F. Supp. 2d 71, 80 (D.D.C. 2010); Sande v. United States, 323

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). When ajurisdic- tional question is raised, we must address it before deciding the case. Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006). ¹²The relevant docket numbers are 6411-07 (PMG), 6413-07 (PAI), 6414-07 (PERC), 6499-07 (PAQ), and 6593-07 (PACE). - 34 - [*34] This Court generally h

In a CDP case such as this, ourjurisdiction depends on the issuance of a notice ofdetermination following a timely request for a CDP hearing and the filing ofa timely petition for review. Sec. 6330(d)(1); Orum v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 1, 8 (2004), M, 412 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2005). Respondent initially moved to dismiss this case for lack

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). When ajurisdic- tional question is raised, we must address it before deciding the case. Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006). ¹²The relevant docket numbers are 6411-07 (PMG), 6413-07 (PAI), 6414-07 (PERC), 6499-07 (PAQ), and 6593-07 (PACE). - 34 - [*34] This Court generally h

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). When ajurisdic- tional question is raised, we must address it before deciding the case. Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006). ¹²The relevant docket numbers are 6411-07 (PMG), 6413-07 (PAI), 6414-07 (PERC), 6499-07 (PAQ), and 6593-07 (PACE). - 34 - [*34] This Court generally h

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). When ajurisdic- tional question is raised, we must address it before deciding the case. Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006). ¹²The relevant docket numbers are 6411-07 (PMG), 6413-07 (PAI), 6414-07 (PERC), 6499-07 (PAQ), and 6593-07 (PACE). - 34 - [*34] This Court generally h

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). When ajurisdic- tional question is raised, we must address it before deciding the case. Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006). ¹²The relevant docket numbers are 6411-07 (PMG), 6413-07 (PAI), 6414-07 (PERC), 6499-07 (PAQ), and 6593-07 (PACE). - 34 - [*34] This Court generally h

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). When ajurisdic- tional question is raised, we must address it before deciding the case. Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006). ¹²The relevant docket numbers are 6411-07 (PMG), 6413-07 (PAI), 6414-07 (PERC), 6499-07 (PAQ), and 6593-07 (PACE). - 34 - [*34] This Court generally h

nnot confer jurisdiction on the Court by their agreement. See, e.g., Stewart v. Commissioner, - 8 - [*8] 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006); Evans Publ'g, Inc. v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 242, 247 n.5 (2002). Congress provides the bounds ofourjurisdiction, see sec. 7442; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 885, 888 (1989), and we must assure ourselves that we have the requisitejurisdiction to decide a matter whenever ourjurisdiction over that matter is subject to reasonable doubt, see Estate ofR

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). We do not havejurisdiction to determine whether the tax for any year not included in the notice ofdeficiency has been overpaid or underpaid. Sec. 6214(b). Therefore, we cannot determine that petitioners are eligible for a bad debt deduction for 2011. 2. Grande River Petitioners claimed a b

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). However, we havejurisdiction in any case to determine whether we havejurisdiction over that case. Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). A taxpayer seeking to invoke this Court'sjurisdiction must affirmatively assert suchjurisdiction and the factual basis necessary to establish t

& Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000). We havejurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency ifthe Commissioner issues a valid notice ofdeficiency and the taxpayer files a timely petition. GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 521. II. Application ofTEFRA Procedures Both parties agree that Lincoln Partners was a

Where the IRS Appeals Office issues a notice ofdetermination to the tax- 3The IRS will ordinarily issue a decision letter after completing an equiva- lent hearing. See Moorhous v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 263, 270 (2001); sec. 301.6330-1(i)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. 4Respondent determined that the IRS date stamp on the Form 12153, Request

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). When ajurisdic- tional question is raised, we must address it before deciding the case. Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006). ¹²The relevant docket numbers are 6411-07 (PMG), 6413-07 (PAI), 6414-07 (PERC), 6499-07 (PAQ), and 6593-07 (PACE). - 34 - [*34] This Court generally h

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). When ajurisdic- tional question is raised, we must address it before deciding the case. Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006). ¹²The relevant docket numbers are 6411-07 (PMG), 6413-07 (PAI), 6414-07 (PERC), 6499-07 (PAQ), and 6593-07 (PACE). - 34 - [*34] This Court generally h

7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). We cannot create or expand this jurisdiction by estoppel or other equitable measures. See Friedland v. Commissioner (Friedland I), T.C. Memo. 2011-90, slip op. at 7 (and cases cited thereat); see also Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator C

7442; Estate ofYoung v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 881 (1983). In deter- mining whether we havejurisdiction over a given matter, this Court and the Courts ofAppeals have given ourjurisdictional provisions a broad, practical construction rather than a narrow, technical one. Lewy v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 779, 781 (1977). When a statute is capabl

When the Appeals Office issues a notice ofdetermination to a taxpayer following an administrative hearing, section 6330(d)(1) provides that the taxpayerhas 30 days following the issuance ofthe notice to file a petition for review with the Tax Court.

626, 632 (1984); see also Rule 13(c).

Commissioner, 115 T.C. 287, 290-291 (2000). The Court hasjurisdiction to review all notices ofdetermination issued pursuant to section 6330. Sec. 6330(d)(1); McNeill v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. __, __ (slip op. at 11-12) (June 19, 2017). Where, as here, the Court lacks originaljurisdiction over the underlying liability (overstated

7442; Guralnik v. Commissioner, 146 T.C. 230, 235 (2016); Moosally v. Commissioner, 142 T.C. 183, 195-196 (2014). In determining whether we havejurisdiction over a given matter, this Court and the Courts ofAppeals have given ourjurisdictional provi- sions a broad, practical construction rather than a narrow, technical one. Bongam -8- v. Commi

7442; Estate ofYoung v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 881 (1983). In deter- mining whether we havejurisdiction over a given matter, this Court and the Courts ofAppeals have given ourjurisdictional provisions a broad, practical construction rather than a narrow, technical one. Lewy v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 779, 781 (1977). When a statute is capabl

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. -6- [*6] 527, 529 (1985); see also Rules 13(a), 320(b). With respect to claims for relieffromjoint and several liability, the Court has threejurisdictional bases for reviewing a claim: (1) as an affirmative defense in a deficiency redetermination proc

7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Section 7623(b)(4) provides us with jurisdiction in a whistleblower action with respect to "[a]ny determination regarding an award under paragraph (1), (2), or (3)" (including a determination to deny an award) ifa petition invoking ourjurisdiction over that matter is timely -4- [*4] filed

* * * We have only the powers expressly conferred on us by Congress, and may not apply equitable principles to expand ourjurisdiction beyond the limits ofsection 7442."), a , 867 F.2d 749 (2d Cir.

7442; Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976); see also Rule 13(b). The Court hasjurisdiction to determine its jurisdiction over a particular case. Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). Moreover, the Court'sjurisdiction cannot be enlarged by the parties' agreement, or waiver, or failure to object. Romann v. Commissioner, 111 T

7442; Estate ofYoung v. Com- missioner, 81 T.C. 879, 881 (1983). In determining whether we havejurisdiction over a given matter, this Court and the Courts ofAppeals have given ourjuris- dictional provisions a broad, practical construction rather than a narrow, technical one. Lewy v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 779, 781 (1977). When a statutoryprovi-

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420-422 (1943). This Court lacksjurisdiction over the allocation or amount of petitioner's annuity payments. - 5 - [*5] Petitioner does not dispute that he received $35,257. Respondent included this amount on the substit

7442; Commissionerv. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987) ("The Tax Court is a court oflimitedjurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers.") (citing Commissionerv. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418 (1943)); Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984) ("This Court is a court oflimited authority and may exercisejurisdiction only to the exte

7442; Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 - 4 - [*4] (1976); see, e.g., Rules 13, 340(b). Section 7623(b)(4) provides that this Court hasjurisdiction with respect to matters addressed in any determination made in response to a whistleblower claim under section 7623(b). More specifically, section 7623(b)(4) provides that "[a]ny determinatio

re intrusive than necessary. See sec. 6330(c)(3). Section 6330(d)(1) grants this Courtjurisdiction to review the determination made by Appeals in connection with the hearing. II. Jurisdiction Generally The Tax Court is a court oflimitedjurisdiction, sec. 7442, and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Congress, Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006); Estate ofYoung v. Commissioner, 81 -7- T.C. 879, 880-881 (1983). Questions ofjurisdiction are fundamental

Section 6330(d)(1) provides that an aggrieved taxpayer in a CDP case "may, within 30 days ofa determination un- der this section, appeal such determination to the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall havejurisdiction with respect to such matter)." We have repeatedly held that 5The Tax Court has proposed an amendment to its Rules to

7442; Commissionerv. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987) ("The Tax Court is a court oflimitedjurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers.") (citing Commissionerv. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418 (1943)); Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984) ("This Court is a court oflimited authority and may exercisejurisdiction only to the exte

7442; Commissionerv. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987) ("The Tax Court is a court oflimitedjurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers.") (citing Commissionerv. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418 (1943)); Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984) ("This Court is a court oflimited authority and may exercisejurisdiction only to the exte

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). We may exercise ourjurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. Medeiros v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1255, 1259 (1981); Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). Nevertheless we havejurisdiction to determine in any case whether we have jurisdiction over that case. Kluge

A timely filed petition and a valid notice ofdeficiency are essential to the Court's jurisdiction. Secs. 6212 and 6213; Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1025 (1988). A. Timely Filed Petition Generally, a taxpayerhas 90 days after the mailing ofa notice ofdeficiency to fi

Section 6330(d)(1) provides that an aggrieved taxpayer in a lien/levy case "may, within 30 days ofa determination under this section, appeal such determination to the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall havejurisdiction with respect to such matter)." We have held that this 30- day period isjurisdictional, and we dismiss for lack of

Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976); see also Rule 13(b). The Court hasjurisdiction to determine whether it hasjurisdiction over a particular case. Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). Moreover, the Court's jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by the parties' agreement, or waiver, or failure to object. Romann v. Commissi

7442; Estate ofYoung v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 881 (1983). However, we always have jurisdiction to determine whether we havejurisdiction. Cooper v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 70, 73 (2010); Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). II. The Merits A. The Statutory Scheme for Disclosure Actions Congress mandated in section 6110(a) that "t

- 12 - [*12] the Milling FPAA is a "reproduction" ofthe American Boat FPAA and therefore violates the rule prohibiting respondent from issuing a second FPAA, see sec. 6223(f). Alternatively, petitioner contends that we lackjurisdiction over the Milling FPAA because: (1) all adjustments in the Milling FPAA are computational adjustments f

The Court has authority in a TEFRA partnership-level proceeding to determine all partnership items for a partnership taxable year to which the FPAA relates, the proper allocation ofpartnership items among the partnership's partners, and the application ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount that relates to an adjustment to

The Court has authority in a TEFRA partnership-level proceeding to determine all partnership items for a partnership taxable year to which the FPAA relates, the proper allocation ofpartnership items among the partnership's partners, and the application ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount that relates to an adjustment to

The Court has authority in a TEFRA partnership-level proceeding to determine all partnership items for a partnership taxable year to which the FPAA relates, the proper allocation ofpartnership items among the partnership's partners, and the application ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount that relates to an adjustment to

agener has worked in U.S. Postal Service mail processing and distribution centers for over 20 years in a number ofmanagerial and nonmanagerial capacities. -4- [*4] Discussion I. Jurisdiction Generally The Tax Court is a court oflimitedjurisdiction, sec. 7442, and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Congress, Stewart v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006); Estate ofYoung v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 880-881 (1983). Questions ofjurisdiction are fundamental; and

7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The Court'sjurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in income tax depends on the issuance ofa valid notice ofdeficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988). Section 6212(a) express

The Court has authority in a TEFRA partnership-level proceeding to determine all partnership items for a partnership taxable year to which the FPAA relates, the proper allocation ofpartnership items among the partnership's partners, and the application ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount that relates to an adjustment to

The Court has authority in a TEFRA partnership-level proceeding to determine all partnership items for a partnership taxable year to which the FPAA relates, the proper allocation ofpartnership items among the partnership's partners, and the application ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount that relates to an adjustment to

7442; Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976); see also Rule 13(a). The Court hasjurisdiction to determine itsjurisdiction over a particular case. Kluger - 15 - [*15] v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). Moreover, the Court's jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by the parties' agreement or waiver or failure to object. Romann v. Commiss

Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976); see also Rule 13(b). The Court hasjurisdiction to determine whether it hasjurisdiction over a particular case. Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). Moreover, the Court's jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by the parties' agreement, or waiver, or failure to object. Romann v. Commissi

The Court has authority in a TEFRA partnership-level proceeding to determine all partnership items for a partnership taxable year to which the FPAA relates, the proper allocation ofpartnership items among the partnership's partners, and the application ofany penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount that relates to an adjustment to

Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976); see also Rule 13(b). The Court has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a particular case. Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). Moreover, the Court’s jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by the parties’ agreement, or waiver, or failure to object. Romann v. Commis

Section 6214(a) provides the Court withjurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount ofa deficiency as long as the taxpayer files a timelypetition from a valid notice ofdeficiency. Sec. 6213(a). While the deficiency procedures generally do not need to be followed so as to determine affected items flowing froní a TEFRA partnership-level

Section 6214(a) provides the Court withjurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount ofa deficiency as long as the taxpayer files a timelypetition from a valid notice ofdeficiency. Sec. 6213(a). While the deficiency procedures generally do not need to be followed so as to determine affected items flowing froní a TEFRA partnership-level

7442; Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 - 8 - (1976); see also Rule 13(a). However, we have the authority to determine whether we havejurisdiction over a particular case. Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). A. Positions ofthe Parties Both parties assert thatthis Court should dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction because

Section 6214(a) provides the Court withjurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount ofa deficiency as long as the taxpayer files a timelypetition from a valid notice ofdeficiency. Sec. 6213(a). While the deficiency procedures generally do not need to be followed so as to determine affected items flowing froní a TEFRA partnership-level

& Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000). The Court has authority in a TEFRA partnership-level proceeding to determine all partnership items for a partnership taxable year to which the FPAA relates, the proper allocation ofpartnership items among the partnership's partners, and the application ofany penalty, addition t

Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976); see also Rule 13. Respondent contends that the Court lacksjurisdiction in this case, and petitioner does not object to respondent's assertion. However, our jurisdiction is not expanded or contracted by the positions ofthe parties. Thus, it is not dispositive that both parties claim that we l

Section 6214(a) provides the Court withjurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount ofa deficiency as long as the taxpayer files a timelypetition from a valid notice ofdeficiency. Sec. 6213(a). While the deficiency procedures generally do not need to be followed so as to determine affected items flowing froní a TEFRA partnership-level

& Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000). The Court has authority in a TEFRA partnership-level proceeding to determine all partnership items for a partnership taxable year to which the FPAA relates, the proper allocation ofpartnership items among the partnership's partners, and the application ofany penalty, addition t

e uphold the NFTLs for the years 1998-2003. Unsure ofexactly whatto call this motion, he labeled it a motion to conform the pleadings with the proof. It is unclear ifwe can do anything about this ourselves. We are a court of limitedjurisdiction, see sec. 7442; Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984), and section 6330(d) says that a taxpayer may "appeal such determination - 10 - [*10] * * * to the Tax Court (and the Tax Court shall havejurisdiction with respect to such matter)." (Emphasis

Section 6214(a) provides the Court withjurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount ofa deficiency as long as the taxpayer files a timelypetition from a valid notice ofdeficiency. Sec. 6213(a). While the deficiency procedures generally do not need to be followed so as to determine affected items flowing froní a TEFRA partnership-level

Commissioner, 86 T.C. at 1226; see also Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Currently, ourjurisdiction to reviewrejection ofa taxpayer's OIC is limited to situations in which the taxpayer submits an OIC as a collection alternative during the course ofa CDP hearing pursuantto section 6330(c)(2)(A)(iii), receives a no

Section 6214(a) provides the Court withjurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount ofa deficiency as long as the taxpayer files a timelypetition from a valid notice ofdeficiency. Sec. 6213(a). While the deficiency procedures generally do not need to be followed so as to determine affected items flowing froní a TEFRA partnership-level

7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The Court'sjurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency is based on the issuance ofa valid notice ofdeficiency and the timely filing ofa petition.3 Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 3 A taxpayer who challenges the validity ofa notice ofdeficiency generally argues that the

Section 6214(a) provides the Court withjurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount ofa deficiency as long as the taxpayer files a timelypetition from a valid notice ofdeficiency. Sec. 6213(a). While the deficiency procedures generally do not need to be followed so as to determine affected items flowing froní a TEFRA partnership-level

7442; Estate ofYoung v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 881 (1983). In determining whetherwe have jurisdiction over a given matter, this Court and the Courts ofAppeals have given ourjurisdictional provisions a broad, practical construction rather than a narrow, technical one. Lewyv. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 779, 781 (1977). When a statutory provision

Section 6214(a) provides the Court withjurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount ofa deficiency as long as the taxpayer files a timelypetition from a valid notice ofdeficiency. Sec. 6213(a). While the deficiency procedures generally do not need to be followed so as to determine affected items flowing froní a TEFRA partnership-level

Section 7623(b)(4) provides that this Court hasjurisdiction with respect to matters addressed in any determination made in response to a whistleblower claim under section 7623(b).

7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 529. Jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a party invoking our jurisdiction bears the burden ofproving that we havejurisdiction. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960); Nat'l Comm. to Secure Justice v. Com

Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976); see also, ea., Rules 13, 340(b). We nevertheless havejurisdiction to decide whether we havejurisdiction. SECC Corp. v. Commissioner, 142 T.C.__, _ (slip op. at 8) (Apr. 3, 2014); Hambrick v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 348 (2002); Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984); Kluger v. Commission

Suppose that we had takenjurisdiction ofthis case and decided the question petitionerposes-- whether FBARpayments constitute "additional amounts" within the meaning of section 7623(b)(1) and (5)(B) and are thus properly includable in the basis for a nondiscretionary award.

Section 6214(a) provides the Court withjurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount ofa deficiency as long as the taxpayer files a timelypetition from a valid notice ofdeficiency. Sec. 6213(a). While the deficiency procedures generally do not need to be followed so as to determine affected items flowing froní a TEFRA partnership-level

Section 6214(a) provides the Court with jurisdiction to redetermine the correct amount of a deficiency as long as the taxpayer files a timely petition from a valid notice of deficiency. Sec. 6213(a). While the deficiency procedures generally do not need to be followed so as to determine affected items flowing from a TEFRA partnership-lev

7442; Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976); see also Rule 13(a). However, we have the authority to determine whether we have jurisdiction over a particular case. Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). A. Positions of the Parties Both parties assert that this Court should dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction because res

7442; Estate of Young v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 881 (1983). In determining whether we have jurisdiction over a given matter, this Court and the Courts of Appeals have given our jurisdictional provisions a broad, practical construction rather than a narrow, technical one. Lewy v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 779, 781 (1977). When a statutory provi

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). We may exercisejurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Congress. Stewartv. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006). Questions ofjurisdiction are fundamental and must be addressed whenever it appears this Court may lack jurisdiction. Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Comm

. at 270; Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960). The Court'sjurisdiction is set explicitly by statute, see Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442, and the Court lacks authority to apply equitable principles (e.g., estoppel) to acquirejurisdiction over a matter that the statute does not authorize the Court to decide, see Calvert Anesthesia Assocs.-Pricha Phattiyakul, M.D., P.A. v. Comm

7442; see also Neely v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 287, 290-291 (2000); Estate of Forgey v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 142, 145-146 (2000); Henry Randolph Consulting v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 1, 4 (1999). Ourjurisdiction in these consolidated cases is predicated upon sections 6015(e)(1) and 6330(d)(1). Section 6015(e)(1) gives the Tax Courtjurisdictio

7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and petitioner, as the party invoking the Court'sjurisdiction, bears the burden ofproving thatjurisdiction exists. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff'd, 22 Fed. Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001). Our Court has no a

Section 6213(a) ofsubchapter B authorizes the Tax Court to redetermine a deficiencyprovided a timelypetition is filed. Section 6211 def'mes a deficiency as 20Notice 2006-50, 2006-1 C.B. 1141, has been prospectively vacated by the U.S. District Court for the District ofColumbia. See In re Long-Distance Tel. Serv. Fed. Excise Tax Refund Li

7442; see also Henry Randolph Consulting v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 1, 4 (1999). Under section 6330(d)(1), we havejurisdiction over the determination made by Appeals, - 8 - [*8] and ourjurisdiction is defined by the scope ofthat determination. Freije v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14, 25 (2005). Petitioner claims that it overpaid its employment tax

7442; see also Neely v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 287, 290-291 (2000); Estate of Forgey v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 142, 145-146 (2000); Henry Randolph Consulting v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 1, 4 (1999). Ourjurisdiction in these consolidated cases is predicated upon sections 6015(e)(1) and 6330(d)(1). Section 6015(e)(1) gives the Tax Courtjurisdictio

7442; see also Henry Randolph Consulting v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 1, 4 (1999). Under section 6330(d)(1), we havejurisdiction over the determination made by Appeals, - 8 - [*8] and ourjurisdiction is defined by the scope ofthat determination. Freije v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 14, 25 (2005). Petitioner claims that it overpaid its employment tax

. at 270; Wheeler’s Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960). The Court’s jurisdiction is set explicitly by statute, see Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442, and the Court lacks authority to apply equitable principles (e.g., estoppel) to acquire jurisdiction over a matter that the statute does not authorize the Court to decide, see Calvert Anesthesia Assocs.-Pricha Phattiyakul, M.D., P.A. v. Co

7442 ("The Tax Court arid its divisions shall have suchjurisdiction as is conferred on themby this title"); see also Pvo v. Còmmissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984) ("This Court is a court oflimited -20- authority and may exercisejurisdiátion only to the extent expressly providedby Congress."). Section;6226(a)*confersjurigdiction on us over a ti

Commissiorfer, 85 T.Ò. 527, 529 (1985). Pursuant to section 6404(h), the Tax Court is authorized, in certain circumstances, to "determine whether the Secretary's failure to abate int rest underthis section was an abuse of discretion". However, we do not havejurisdiction pursuant to section 6404(h) unless and until the Commissio

7442; see also GAF Corp.

ing mail via FedEx within the United States. See Estate ofCranor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-27. - 3 - [*3] Discussion The Tax Court is a court oflimitedjurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress.2 See sec. 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). This Court'sjurisdiction to redëtermine a deficiency is predicated on the issuance ofa valid noticé ofdeficiency and the timely filing ofa petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93

Commissioner, 74 T.C. 651, 653 (1980); Griffin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-246, 1995 WL 338552, at *2. - 34 - [*34] IV. Other Deductions Section 162(a) allows taxpayers to deduct "all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business." Sec. 162(a). But taxpayer

7442; Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). We don't typically havejurisdiction over this type ofexcise:tax,see sec. 6211(a), but the Commissionerhere disallowedthe section 34 credits that MLI claimed on its income-tax returns, and we do havejurisdiction to redetermine the deficiency that resulted from that disallowance. 4 The Commi

We do not maintain generaljurisdiction to decide whetherrespondent is equitably estopped from assessing the entirety ofpetitioners' accrued interest. Section 6404(h) provides this Court withjurisdiction only to "determine whether the "Respondent conceded that he abused his discretion in not abating interest from the period beginning June

for appealing determinations concerning collection actions. Petitioner objected, the Court conducted a hearing on the motion, and the parties filed briefs thereafter. Discussion Jurisdiction Generally The Tax Court is a court oflimitedjurisdiction, sec. 7442, and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by Congress, Stewart v. -7- Commissioner, 127 T.C. 109, 112 (2006); Estate ofYoung v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 880-881 (1983). Questions ofjurisdiction are fundamental

7442; Commissionerv. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420 (1943). This Còurt is - 18 - authorized to redetermine the amount ofa defibiency for a taxable period as to which the Commissioner issued a.notice ofdeficiency and the taxpayertimely petitionedthe Court for review. See secs. 6212, 6213, and 6214. This Court also hasjurisdict

7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). We havejurisdiction to redetermine a taxpayer's Federal tax liabilities in a deficiency proceeding where the Commissionerhas issued a valid notice ofdeficiency and the taxpayerhas timely filed a petition. Secs. 6212 and 6213; Rule 13(a), (c); Gustafson v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 85, 89 (1991

7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Jurisdiction must be proven affirmatively, and a party invoking ourjurisdiction bears the burden ofproving that we havejurisdiction over the party'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); Natal

Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). We don’t typically have jurisdiction over this type of excise tax, see sec. 6211(a), but the Commissioner here disallowed the section 34 credits that MLI claimed on its income-tax returns, and we do have jurisdiction to redetermine the deficiency that resulted from that disallowance. The C

7442; Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420 (1943). This Court is authorized to redetermine the amount of a deficiency for a taxable period as to which the Commissioner issued a notice of deficiency and the taxpayer timely petitioned the Court for review. See secs. 6212, 6213, and 6214. This Court also has jurisdictio

7442; see also GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000). We have jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency only if a valid notice of deficiency is issued by the Commissioner and a petition contesting the Commissioner’s deficiency determination is timely filed by the taxpayer. GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519. P

7442 (“The Tax Court and its divisions shall have such jurisdiction as is conferred on them by this title”); see also Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984) (“This Court is a court of limited authority and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by Congress.”). Section 6226(a) confers jurisdiction on us over a tim

7442; see GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000). Our jurisdiction to redetermine the amount 2All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended. - 3 - of a deficiency is premised on the issuance of a.valid notice of deficiency followed by a timely filing of a petition. Id. Once validly exercised, our "ju

We have jurisdiction lto determine whether petitioner qualifies for section 6015(f) relief. See sec. 6015(e); see also Kollar v. Commissioner, 13-1 T.C. 191, 196 (2008). III. The Standard and Scope of Review . In Porter v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 203, 210 (2009), we held that in determining whether the taxpayer is entitled to equitable re

Before 1988 it was -20- well settled that this Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in tax generally did not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner, 13 F.3d 54, 56-57 (2d Cir. 1993); Asciutto v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-564, affd. per order 26 F.3d 108 (9th Cir. 1994). The only

affect her deficiencies. We lack jurisdiction to provide relief othe than "to rede ermine the correct amount of the deficiency" . ' Sec . 6214 (a) . We may not enlarge upon that jurisdiction. Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976);' see also sec. 7442. Third, she stat es that she is entitled to relief under section 6015, the p ovision govern ng innocent-spouse claims. Section 6015 reliev s qualifying taxpayers from the joint liability that accompanies the fil ng of a joint income-tax - 2

"plenary jurisdiction" and implement a de novo standard of review. Petrs.' Br. at 7. Our jurisdiction is "strictly limited by statute" and we "may not enlarge upon that statutory jurisdiction." Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976); see also sec. 7442. Here, sec. 6404(h)(1) is our only source of jurisdiction to abate interest. See 5C8 Clinton St. Corp. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 352, 354-357 (1987) (holding, before Congress enacted sec. 6404(h), we lacked jurisdiction). Sec. 6404(h) (1) li

l Service Track & Confirm feature is available at http://www.usps.com/. Although that feature is responsive to the Deutsche Post tracking number,, no relevant information is provided. Discussion The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, see sec. 7442, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress.4 Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). This Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency

7442; Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator - Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420 (1943) A This Court is authorized to redetermine the amount of a déficiency for a taxable period as to which the Commissioner issued a notice of .deficiency and the e tax];íayer timely petitiòned th Court .for review. See secs. .6212, 6213, and 6214. This Codrt also has ju

Before 1988 it was well settled that this Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in tax generally did not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner, 13 F.3d 54, 56-57 (2d Cir. 1993); Asciutto v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-564, affd. per order 26 F.3d 108 (9th Cir. 1994). The only recour

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). We lack authority to -enlarge upon that statutory jurisdiction, Bremansv. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (:1976), and petitioner's invocation of rule 22(a)-(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure cannot expand our jurisdiction see,.e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 82 ("These rules do not extend or

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). We lack authority to enlarge upon that statutory jurisdiction, Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976), and petitioner’s invocation of rule 22(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure cannot expand our jurisdiction, see, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 82 (“These rules do not extend or li

7442; Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). Like other federal courts, however, we do have jurisdiction in all cases to decide whether we have jurisdiction. Kluger, 83 T.C. at 314-15. And in this particular case we look at four questions: • What weight do we give to the District Court’s order? • Is section 6015(e)’s deadline for fil

Respondent may therefore assess and collect the penalty without issuing a deficiency notice. We accordingly conclude that we lack jurisdiction to redetermine the section 6707A penalties and shall grant respondent’s motion to dismiss and to strike as to the section 6707A penalties. For the foregoing reasons, An appropriate order will be i

Commissioner, 114 T.C. 171, 175 (2000); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Section 6015(e)20 confers jurisdiction on this Court to review a determination under section 6015(f). It provides in pertinent part as follows: SEC. 6015(e). Petition for Review by Tax Court.-- (1) In general.--In the case of an individual a

Rule 41(a) provides that after the pleadings are closed, a party may amend a pleading only by leave of Court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be given freely when justice so requires.

7442 ; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T .C . 527, 529 (1985) . Our jurisdiction in a collection review proceeding brought pursuant to section 6320 or section 6330 generally depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of determination and a timely filed petition . Prevo v. Commissioner, 123 T .C . 326, 328 (2004) ; see also Sarrell v . Commissioner

Section 7442 expressly provides that the Court and its divisions shall have such jurisdiction as is conferred on them by the Internal Revenue Code and by laws enacted after February 26, 1926.

Section 7442 expressly provides that the Court and its divisions shall have such jurisdiction as is conferred on them by the Internal Revenue Code and by laws enacted after February 26, 1926. See Adams v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 446, 447 (1978); Chatterji v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1402, 1406 (1970). Petitioners each received a notice of deficiency, an

Petitioner does not point to any grant of jurisdiction to this Court that would extend to fbar penalties, and we find none. The FBAR penalties provided in title 31 are nowhere made subject to the deficiency procedures of title 26, see secs. 6212-6214, on which procedures the bulk of this Court’s jurisdiction is predicated. For certain ta

Commissioner, 114 T.C. 171, 175 (2000); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Before December 20, 2006, former section 6015(e)(1) provided this Court with jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s denial of relief under section 6015 only “In the case of an individual against whom a deficiency has been asserted and who

Commissioner, 114 T.C. 171, 175 (2000); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Although neither party has contested our jurisdiction, jurisdiction may not be conferred upon the Court by agreement of the parties. See Clark v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 108, 109 (2005); Neely v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 287, 291 (2000); Naftel

7442; see also GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000). We have jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency if a valid notice of deficiency is issued by the Commissioner and if a timely petition is filed by the taxpayer. See GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra at 521. We may decide issues only to the extent of our jurisdi

7442; see also GAF Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 519, 521 (2000). The jurisdictional dispute in this case requires an examination of the interrelationship between the Court’s jurisdiction to review a claim for relief from joint and several liability on a joint return under section 6015 and the Court’s jurisdiction under the unified p

Commissioner, 95 T.C. 560, 565 (1990). Our jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency is dependent on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition. Secs. 6212, 6213; Rule 13(a), (c). To be timely, a petition must generally be filed within 90 days of the date the notice of deficiency is issued by

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). While this Court has jurisdiction to determine deficiencies in tax pursuant to section 6214, it is well settled that such jurisdiction generally does not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner,

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). While this Court has jurisdiction to determine deficiencies in tax pursuant to section 6214, it is well settled that such jurisdiction generally does not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner,

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). While this Court has jurisdiction to determine deficiencies in tax pursuant to section 6214, it is well settled that such jurisdiction generally does not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner,

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). While this Court has jurisdiction to determine deficiencies in tax pursuant to section 6214, it is well settled that such jurisdiction generally does not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner,

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). While this Court has jurisdiction to determine deficiencies in tax pursuant to section 6214, it is well settled that such jurisdiction generally does not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner,

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). While this Court has jurisdiction to determine deficiencies in tax pursuant to section 6214, it is well settled that such jurisdiction generally does not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner,

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). While this Court has jurisdiction to determine deficiencies in tax pursuant to section 6214, it is well settled that such jurisdiction generally does not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner,

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). While this Court has jurisdiction to determine deficiencies in tax pursuant to section 6214, it is well settled that such jurisdiction generally does not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner,

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). While this Court has jurisdiction to determine deficiencies in tax pursuant to section 6214, it is well settled that such jurisdiction generally does not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner,

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). While this Court has jurisdiction to determine deficiencies in tax pursuant to section 6214, it is well settled that such jurisdiction generally does not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner,

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). While this Court has jurisdiction to determine deficiencies in tax pursuant to section 6214, it is well settled that such jurisdiction generally does not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner,

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). While this Court has jurisdiction to determine deficiencies in tax pursuant to section 6214, it.is well settled that such jurisdiction generally does not extend to s.tatutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). While this Court has jurisdiction to determine deficiencies in tax pursuant to section 6214, it is well settled that such jurisdiction generally does not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner,

e that here, too, the solution must be with Congress. * * * * * * * Petitioners’ materials * * * show that Congress is well aware of the claimed inequities resulting from the application of the AMT and has, so far, declined to act. - 12 - See also sec. 7442; Paxman v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 567, 576-577 (1968) (the Tax Court is not a court of equity; “The power to legislate is exclusively the power of Congress and not of this Court or any other court.”), affd. 414 F.2d 265 (10th Cir. 1969); Lorai

Commissioner, supra at 175; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The Tax Court generally has deficiency jurisdiction over income, gift, and estate tax cases. See secs. 6211(a), 6213(a), 6214(a); Downing v. Commissioner, supra at 27; Van Es v. Commissioner, supra at 328. For purposes of section 6330(d), the Court may

Commissioner, supra at 175; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The Tax Court generally has deficiency jurisdiction over income, gift, and estate tax cases. See secs. 6211(a), 6213(a), 6214(a); Downing v. Commissioner, supra at 27; Van Es v. Commissioner, supra at 328. For purposes of section 6330(d), the Court may

With respect to the content of the petition in an action brought under section 6330(d), Rule 331(b) provides that a copy of the notice of determination accompany the petition.

527, 529 (1985); see also sec.

By statute, we are authorized to redetermine the amount of a deficiency for a particular taxable period as to which the Commissioner issued a notice of deficiency and the taxpayer petitioned the Court for review. See secs. 6212, 6213, and 6214; Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989). As to - 11 - any such taxable period for which

7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420, 422 (1943). This Court lacks jurisdiction over petitioners' collateral attack on the forfeiture. Petitioners further contend that the damage done to South Carolina's policy against illegal gambling is outweighed by c

7442; Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420 (1943). By statute, this Court is authorized to redetermine the amount of a deficiency for a particular taxable period as to which the Commissioner issued a notice of deficiency and the taxpayer petitioned the Court for review. See secs. 6212, 6213, and 6214. This Court also

By statute, we are authorized to redetermine the amount of a deficiency for a particular taxable period as to which the Commissioner issued a notice of deficiency and the taxpayer petitioned the Court for review. See secs. 6212, 6213, and 6214; Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989). As to any such taxable period for which a petiti

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In proceedings brought by a taxpayer for a review of the Commissioner’s denial of the taxpayer’s request to abate interest, as in the present case, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited solely to a determination as to whether the Commissioner abused his discretion in declining to abate

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180- 1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In a deficiency proceeding we may review a taxpayer’s request for relief under section 66(c). In such circumstance, we must decide whether the Commissioner abused his discretion. See Hardy v. Commissioner, supra; Morris v. Commissione

For a taxpayer to maintain an action in this Court there must be a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1025 (1988). In the jurisdiction motion, petitioners do not dispute that respondent issued a notice of deficiency t

6211(a); 6213(a); see also Hardy v.

“We may only exercise jurisdiction to the extent expressly permitted by Congress.” Judge v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987). A remedy for the alleged abduction of petitioner’s children is beyond this Court’s jurisdiction, and, accordingly, we have not considered this matter further. - 4 - Respondent issued a Notice of Defic

7442; Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990). Petitioner’s “counterclaim” falls outside that jurisdiction. - 7 - illegal receipts for the first 8 months of 1988 as being 8 times this amount.6 If a taxpayer keeps inadequate records, the Commissioner may compute the taxpayer’s income by any indirect method that is reasonable in light of a

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In a deficiency proceeding we may review a taxpayer’s request for relief under section 66(c). In such circumstances, we must decide whether the Commissioner abused his discretion. See Hardy v. Commissioner, supra; Morris v. Commissione

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180- 1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 9

reated (Article I) Court that must acquire jurisdiction directly from Congress. Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 269 (2000), affd. 22 Fed. Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); see also sec. 7442. When the Court lacks jurisdiction over an issue, the Court does not have the power to decide it. Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des - 37 - Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982); Williams v. Secy. of Navy, 787 F.2d 552, 557 (Fe

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180- 1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Congress vested the Court with jurisdiction to review a taxpayer’s election to claim relief from joint and several liability on a joint return under specified circumstances. See King v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 118, 121-122 (2000); Cors

- 6 - Discussion3 The parties do not dispute petitioners’ entitlement to an investment interest expense deduction under section 163(a), but the parties do dispute the calculation of that deduction. The main issue of contention between the parties is whether the term “investment income”, as defined by section 163(d)(4)(B), includes petit

Under section 6213(a), the Court has jurisdiction to redetermine deficiencies determined by the Commissioner. The Court’s jurisdiction over deficiency proceedings is contingent upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. See Rule 13(a), (c); DaBoul v. Commissioner, 429 F.2d 38 (9th Cir. 1970); Monge v.

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). We have held that the statutory periods set forth in section 6330 are jurisdictional and cannot be extended. See McCune v. Commissioner, supra at 117; cf. Kennedy v.

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180- 1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Respondent moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to strike the allegations in the second amended petition pertaining to the lien filed October 8, 1998, and the assessment and collection of the frivolous return penalty imposed

7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). In proceedings brought by taxpayers under section 6404(h), as is the case before us, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited to a determination as to 3 The final regulations under sec. 6404 contain the same definition of a ministerial act as the temporary regulations. Sec. 301.6404-2(b)(

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends upon the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). Congress vested the Court with jurisdiction to review a taxpayer’s election to claim relief from joint and several liability on a joint return under specified circumstances. See King v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 118, 121-122 (2000); Corso

Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). Our jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in tax depends on a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Sec. 6213(a); Savage v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 46, 48 (1999). Respondent issued a timely notice of deficiency on June 5, 2000. Petitioners timely filed their petition with

reated (Article I) court that must acquire jurisdiction directly from Congress. Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 269 (2000), affd. 22 Fed. Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); see also sec. 7442. When the Court lacks jurisdiction over an issue, the Court does not have the power to decide it. Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982); Williams v. Secy. of Navy, 787 F.2d 552, 557 (Fed. Cir.

7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The grant of jurisdiction to review deficiencies determined by the Commissioner does not provide us with jurisdiction to review taxes imposed under subtitle C, subtitle D (with the exception of excise taxes - 16 - imposed by chapters 41, 42, 43, and 44), subtitle E, and various additions

7442; Savage v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 46, 48 (1999); Pen Coal Corp. v. Commissioner, 107 T.C. 249, 254-255 (1996). Simply stated, any effort to enlarge the period within which a taxpayer outside the United States may file a petition for review with the Court under sections 6320 and 6330 must originate with Congress. - 8 - To reflect the fore

Petitioner, knowing that the Judges of the Court are compensated by the Federal Government, chose to avail himself of the opportunity to file a petition with the Court. See sec. 6213. Petitioner has offered only his bald assertion that, but no explanation of why, compensation of judges by the Federal Government financed, in part, by tax

We lack jurisdiction to redetermine petitioner’s tax liability in years for which the Commissioner has not issued a notice of deficiency. See secs. 6213(a) and 6214(a) and (b). The only notice of deficiency issued to petitioner was with respect to her 1994 tax year. Petitioner’s rollover of gain from the sale of the Ridgefield house into

7442; Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990). Although we have jurisdiction to redetermine the income tax deficiency under section 6213, the Court does not have jurisdiction to decide employee benefit entitlement issues that fall within the purview of various departments and agencies of the United States Government. See sec. 7442; Merker

ee Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); Kelley v. Commissioner, 45 F.3d 348, 351 (9th Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo. - 4 - 1990-158; Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442. Whether we have jurisdiction to decide a matter is an issue that a party, or this or an appellate court sua sponte, may raise at any time. The failure to question our jurisdiction is not a waiver of the right to do so, for if we lack jurisd

7442; Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). Section 6213 confers jurisdiction on this Court to redetermine deficiencies in income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes. See also secs. 6211- 8 The statement of account dated Feb. 29, 2000, which the parties have stipulated, provides for a revised estate tax liability of $2,003,524. Th

Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 3For example, respondent claims, in the alternative: (1) There was no partnership; (2) if there was a partnership, the transfer was not to it but to a related party; and (3) if there was a partnership and the transfer was to it, the transfer was not in exchange for interests in the partnership but, r

eated (Article I) Court, and, consequently, our jurisdiction flows directly from Congress. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442. Jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and petitioner, as the party desiring to invoke our jurisdiction, must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler

7442; Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420, 422 (1943); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). This includes Federal income, estate, and gift taxes which are subject to the deficiency notice requirements of sections 6212(a) and 6213(a). - 5 - Because this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, petitione

7442; see - 8 - also Estate of Meyer v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 560, 562 (1985); Adams v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 81, 84 (1979), affd. without published opinion 688 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1982). With exceptions not germane here, this Court’s jurisdiction is generally limited to redetermining deficiencies in income taxes, estate and gift taxes, and cer

eated (Article I) Court, and, consequently, our jurisdiction flows directly from Congress. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442. Jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and petitioner, as the party desiring to invoke our jurisdiction, must establish affirmatively all facts giving 3 In addition to our regular service of process, we telephoned petitioner’s counsel o

7442; Estate of Young v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 881 (1983). This means that we have only such jurisdiction as the Congress has chosen to confer on us by statute. See Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420-422 (1943); Medeiros v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1255, 1259 (1981). Insofar as the power to enjoin is concerned, t

eated (Article I) Court, and, consequently, our jurisdiction flows directly from Congress. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442. Jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and petitioner, as the party desiring to invoke our jurisdiction, must establish affirmatively all facts giving 4 In addition to our regular service of process, we telephoned petitioner’s counsel o

Commissioner, 74 T.C. 651, 653 (1980); Griffin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-246; see also Wilt v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 977, 978 (1973). - 3 - Petitioner performed services for a subcontractor, N & M Custom Framing (N & M), during 1994 and 1995. Initially, during a portion of 1994, N & M treated petitioner as an employee and

7442; see also Estate of Meyer v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 560, 562 (1985); Adams v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 81, 84 (1979), affd. without published opinion 688 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1982). With exceptions - 9 - not germane here, this Court’s jurisdiction is generally limited to redetermining deficiencies in income taxes, estate and gift taxes, and cer

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). These cases are before the Court pursuant to the unified subchapter S corporation audit and litigation procedures set forth in subchapter D of chapter 63 of subtitle F.3 The 2 Insofar as the paragraphs of the petitions described above

eated (Article I) Court, and, consequently, our jurisdiction flows directly from Congress. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442. Jurisdiction must be shown 4 In addition to our regular service of process, we telephoned petitioner’s counsel on July 24, 2000, to inform them of this extension. - 4 - affirmatively, and petitioner, as the party desiring to invoke our jur

eated (Article I) Court, and, consequently, our jurisdiction flows directly from Congress. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442. Jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and petitioner, as the party desiring to invoke our jurisdiction, must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler

7442; see also Estate of Meyer v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 560, 562 (1985); Adams v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 81, 84 (1979), affd. without published opinion 688 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1982). With exceptions - 9 - not germane here, this Court’s jurisdiction is generally limited to redetermining deficiencies in income taxes, estate and gift taxes, and cer

eated (Article I) Court, and, consequently, our jurisdiction flows directly from Congress. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442. Jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and petitioner, as the party desiring to invoke our jurisdiction, must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction. See Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler

7442; see also Estate of Meyer v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 560, 562 (1985); Adams v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 81, 84 (1979), affd. without published opinion 688 F.2d 815 (2d Cir. 1982). With exceptions - 9 - not germane here, this Court’s jurisdiction is generally limited to redetermining deficiencies in income taxes, estate and gift taxes, and cer

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). These cases are before the Court pursuant to the collection review procedures set forth in section 6330.3 Before 3 Sec. 6330 was enacted under the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 1998), Pub. L. 105-20

7442; Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976). Section 6213 confers jurisdiction on this Court to redetermine deficiencies in income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes. See also secs. 6211-6212, 6214-6215; Rule 13. The provision which confers jurisdiction on this Court to review an addition to tax for late filing is section 6665. Se

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). It is well settled that this Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in tax generally does not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner, 13 F.3d 54, 56-57 (2d Cir. 1993), affg. an Order

ress. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 870 (1991); Kelley v. Commissioner, 45 F.3d 348, 351 (9th Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-158; Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442. Whether we have jurisdiction to decide a matter is an issue that a party, or this or an appellate court sua sponte, may raise at any time. The failure to question our jurisdiction is not a waiver of the right to do so, for if we lack juris

Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). Pursuant to section 6213(a), this Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in tax depends upon a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. See Savage v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 46, 48 (1999). Section 6212(a) provides: “If the Secretary determines that there is a deficienc

decedent’s date of death of at least $2,479,987.81.2 Discussion This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute. See Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976); see also sec. 7442. Section 6404(i) grants the Tax Court jurisdiction to review the Treasury Secretary’s failure to abate interest in any timely action “brought by a taxpayer who meets the requirements referred to in section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii)”. In his motion

7442; Belloff v. Commissioner, 996 F.2d 607, 611 (2d Cir. 1993), affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-350. . Respondent has not, in his pleadings or on brief, raised an issue as to the applicability of section 6402(a), which provides that the Secretary, within the applicable period of limitations, may credit an overpayment, including any interest allowed the

tion to decide this case. We are a Court of limited jurisdiction, and we may exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442. Whether we have jurisdiction over the subject matter of a dispute is an issue that either party thereto, or this or an appellate court sua sponte, may raise at any time. The failure to question our jurisdiction is not a waiver of the right

Commissioner, 95 T.C. 560, 565 (1990). We have jurisdiction to decide whether we have jurisdiction. Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). Section 6226(f) vests this Court with subject matter jurisdiction to determine all partnership items of the partnership for the partnership taxable year to which the FPAA relates and t

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). We have jurisdiction to decide whether we have jurisdiction. Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). - 6 - Our jurisdiction to determine overpayments of tax is provided by section 6512(b). Judge v. Commissioner, supra at 1182. S

7442; Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418 (1943); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). As such, our jurisdiction does not extend to deciding whether a deficiency was discharged in a prior bankruptcy proceeding. Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 8-9 (1990); Graham v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 389, 399 (1980). "I

Commissioner, 95 T.C. 560, 565 (1990). We have jurisdiction to decide whether we have jurisdiction. Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). Section 6226(f) vests this Court with subject matter jurisdiction to determine all partnership items of the partnership for the partnership taxable year to which the FPAA relates and t

Commissioner, 95 T.C. 560, 565 (1990). Section 7476(a) authorizes this Court to determine the outcome of a controversy involving the qualification or continuing qualification of a retirement plan upon the filing of an appropriate pleading. A petition may be filed only by an employer, the plan administrator, or an employee who qu

y an overpayment that he has for 1989. We decline to do so. We are a Court of limited jurisdiction, and we derive our jurisdiction from Congress. Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); see also sec. 7442. In general, the Congress has empowered us to redetermine deficiencies which have been determined by - 3 - respondent. See secs. 6213 and 6214; Murphree v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1309, 1311 (1986); see also sec. 6211 (meaning of the word "de

A valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition are essential to our deficiency jurisdiction. Secs. 6212 and 6213; Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1025 (1988). Under section 6212, a notice of deficiency is sufficient if it is mailed to the taxpayer's last known

7442; Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418 (1943); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985); Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984); Medeiros v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1255, 1259 (1981); Lundy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-14. The Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency depends upon the issuance

Commissioner, 95 T.C. 560, 565 - 8 - (1990). We have jurisdiction to decide whether we have jurisdiction. Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). Section 6226(f) vests this Court with subject matter jurisdiction to determine all partnership items of the partnership for the partnership taxable year to which the FPAA relate

Commissioner, 95 T.C. 560, 565 (1990). We have jurisdiction to decide whether we have jurisdiction. Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). Section 6226(f) vests this Court with subject matter jurisdiction to determine all partnership items of the partnership for the partnership taxable year to which the FPAA relates and t

The jurisdiction of the Tax Court derives from section 7442 and is statutory.

7442; Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990) ("This Court has limited jurisdiction conferred by statute".). Petitioner's allegation that respondent's conduct was improper in some way, such as amounting to a violation of section 7214, is a matter over which this Court has no jurisdiction. Cf. Boger v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-629. Pe

Commissioner, 95 T.C. 560, 565 (1990). - 51 - Section 6226(f) vests this Court with subject matter jurisdiction to determine all partnership items of the partnership for the partnership taxable year to which the FPAA relates and the proper allocation of those items among the partners. Our jurisdiction over a partnership action

7442; Magazine v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 321, 326 (1987); Burns, Stix Friedman & Co. v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 392, 396 (1971). This Court lacks the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to decide whether a taxpayer's deficiency was discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding. Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990). As a general rule, this Court

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). We have jurisdiction to decide whether we have jurisdiction. Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). Our jurisdiction to determine overpayments of tax is provided by section 6512(b). Judge v. Commissioner, supra at 1182. Section

7442; Neilson v. Commissioner, supra at 9. Generally, the Court's jurisdiction is dependent upon a notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Secs. 6212 and 6213. The Court does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a deficiency was discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding. See Neilson v. Commissioner, supra; Graham v. Commissioner, 7

In order to maintain an action in this Court there must be a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1025 (1988). Under section 6212, a notice of deficiency is sufficient if it is mailed to the taxpayer's last known addres

Commissioner, 74 T.C. 651, 652-653 (1980). Accordingly, petitioner contends that we lack subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Subtitle C imposes employment tax on wages of individuals required to be withheld by employers which is in addition to income tax imposed by subtitle A. Subtitle A imposes an income tax on an indivi

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996- 379; Slattery v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-274; Lamont v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-469, and cases cited therein. (continued...) - 11 - We turn now to petitioners' alternative contention that the IRS letter dated November 21, 1996, constitutes a second notice of deficiency. In this regard

Commissioner, 60 T.C. 977, 978 (1973). Our jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency is dependent on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency. Sec. 6213(a); Rule 13(a); Estate of Bartels v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 430, 435 (1996); Levitt v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 437, 441 (1991). Our jurisdiction does not extend to settling empl

OPINION Petitioner Petitioner contends that respondent’s claims against him for tax years 1984 and 1986 were discharged in bankruptcy. We first address whether we have jurisdiction so to determine.5 As a Court of limited statutory jurisdiction, see sec. 7442; Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9 (1990), our subject matter jurisdiction is generally limited to the redetermination of the correct amount of a deficiency determined by the Commissioner. See sec. 6214(a); cf. Swanson v. Commissioner,

Commissioner, 60 T.C. 977, 978 (1973). New section 6404(g), added to the Internal Revenue Code by section 302 of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Pub. L. 104-168, 110 Stat. 1452, 1457 (1996), authorizes this Court to review the Secretary's failure to abate interest only with respect to requests for abatement made after July 30, 199

A valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition are essential to our deficiency jurisdiction. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1025 (1988). Under section 6212, a notice of deficiency is sufficient if it is mailed to the taxpayer's last known address by certified

thize with petitioner's quandary, this Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers. Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987); Hays Corp. v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 436 (1963), affd. 331 F.2d 422 (7th Cir. 1964); see sec. 7442. The Court has no authority to disregard the express provisions of statutes adopted by Congress, even where the result in a particular case may seem harsh. See, e.g., Estate of Cowser v. Commissioner, 736 F.2d 9 It is notable that petitioner

In order to maintain an action in this Court there must be a valid notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27 (1989); Abeles v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1019, 1025 (1988). Under section 6212, a notice of deficiency is sufficient if it is mailed to the taxpayer's last known addres

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). It is equally well settled that this Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in tax generally does not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner, 13 F.3d 54, 56-57 (2d Cir. 1993), affg. a

blic policy and is inequitable. The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and lacks general equitable powers. Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987); Hays Corp. v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 436 (1963), affd. 331 F.2d 422 (7th Cir. 1964); see sec. 7442. The Court has no authority to disregard the express provisions of statutes adopted by Congress, even where the result in a particular case seems harsh. See, e.g., Estate of Cowser v. Commissioner, 736 F.2d 1168, 1171-1174 (7th Cir. 1984),

7442; Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418 (1943); Kluger V. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984). In general, Tax Court jurisdiction exists only if a valid statutory notice of deficiency has been issued by the Commissioner and a timely petition has been filed. Secs. 6212 and 6213; Rules 13, 20; Midland Mortgage Co. v. C

Commissioner, 60 T.C. 977, 978 (1973). Generally, this jurisdiction is limited to income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes which are subject to the deficiency notice requirements of sections 6212(a) and 6213(a). Rule 13; Enochs v. Green, 270 F.2d 558 (5th Cir. 1959); Judd v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 651, 653 (1980). This Court

Commissioner, 60 T.C. 977, 978 (1973). New section 6404(g), added to the Internal Revenue Code by section 302 of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Pub. L. 104-168, authorizes this Court to review the Secretary's failure to abate interest with respect to requests for abatement after July 30, 1996. Because this case does not involve a

Commissioner, 88 T.C. 1175, 1180-1181 (1987); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). It is equally well settled that this Court’s jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency in tax generally does not extend to statutory interest imposed under section 6601. See Bax v. Commissioner, 13 F.3d 54, 56-57 (2d Cir. 1993); LTV Cor

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to redetermine the tax liability of an individual or corporation if a valid notice of deficiency has been mailed by the Commissioner and the taxpayer to whom it is mailed timely files a petition for redetermination of the deficiency. Secs. 6212, 6213; Rules 13, 20; see Midland Mortg. Co. v. Comm

7442; e.g., Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (1984) (so stating). Nevertheless, as we stated in KLuger, where the issue was the validity of an order issued by a Federal District Court under rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (authorizing the release of certain grand jury material): Determining the admissibility of evi

However, exercising jurisdiction over petitioner’s recoupment defense does not require us to exercise jurisdiction that is beyond the scope of petitioner’s main claim for the redetermination of its estate tax deficiency. Although petitioner is, in actuality, the “plaintiff’ in this suit, it is entitled to raise affirmative defenses to re