Zane D. and Debbie L. Worman - Page 6




                                        - 5 -                                         
          for 1995, 1998, 2002, and 2003 and that, as a consequence, “the             
          lien provided by Code section 6321 * * * has been released.”                
               On June 1, 2007, respondent filed his Motion To Dismiss For            
          Lack Of Jurisdiction.  By Order dated June 7, 2007, the Court               
          calendared the motion for hearing at the June 22, 2007 Cheyenne,            
          Wyoming trial session.4  On June 13, 2007, respondent filed a               
          Supplement to his motion.                                                   
                                     Discussion                                       
               The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction.  See sec.            
          7442.  Accordingly, we may exercise jurisdiction only to the                
          extent expressly authorized by statute.  Breman v. Commissioner,            
          66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976).  In addition, jurisdiction must be proven            
          affirmatively, and a party invoking our jurisdiction bears the              
          burden of proving that we have jurisdiction 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); Natl. Comm. to Secure Justice, Etc. v. Commissioner,            
          27 T.C. 837, 839 (1957).  In order to meet this burden, the party           
          must establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our                   
          jurisdiction.  See Wheeler’s Peachtree Pharmacy, Inc. v.                    
          Commissioner, supra at 180; Consol. Co. v. Commissioner, 15                 
          B.T.A. 645, 651 (1929).                                                     


               4  Telephone conference calls with the parties were                    
          conducted prior to the scheduled hearing.                                   






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007