- 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 jurisdiction over an
issue, we do not, and never did, have the power to decide it.
See Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de
Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 (1982); see also Brown v. Commissioner,
78 T.C. 215, 217-218 (1982), and the cases cited therein.
Jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and petitioner, as
the party invoking our jurisdiction in the case at bar, bears the
burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over its case. See
Fehrs v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler's
Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180
(1960); National Comm. to Secure Justice, Etc. v. Commissioner,
27 T.C. 837, 839 (1957). In order to meet its burden, petitioner
must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our
jurisdiction. See Wheeler's Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra at 180; Consolidated Co. v. Commissioner, 15
B.T.A. 645, 651 (1929). Petitioner must establish that: (1)
Respondent issued to it a valid notice of deficiency, and (2) it,
or someone authorized to act on its behalf, filed with the Court
a timely petition. See Rule 13(a), (c); Monge v. Commissioner,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011