                    T.C. Summary Opinion 2008-117



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                KABONGO L. KALUBI, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 23795-07S.               Filed September 8, 2008.



     Kabongo L. Kalubi, pro se.

     Monica J. Miller, for respondent.



     RUWE, Judge:   This case was brought pursuant to the

provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect

when the petition was filed.1   Pursuant to section 7463(b), the

decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and

this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other


     1
       Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code as amended, and all Rule references are
to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                - 2 -

case.    Petitioner filed the petition requesting redetermination

of deficiencies in income tax for 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, and

2006 (years at issue).    This case is before the Court on

respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (motion

to dismiss).

                             Background

     At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in

Georgia.

     On October 15, 2007, petitioner filed with the Court an

incomplete petition that did not have a notice of deficiency

attached.    Petitioner subsequently filed an amended petition

requesting redetermination of deficiencies for the years at

issue.    Petitioner did not attach any statutory notices of

deficiency to his amended petition; however, he did attach a

letter from respondent dated September 19, 2007, which showed an

updated total balance of petitioner’s outstanding unpaid tax

liabilities for the years at issue.

     On May 20, 2008, respondent filed the motion to dismiss.

Respondent alleged that he had issued no notice of deficiency and

had made no other determination that would confer jurisdiction

upon the Court for the years at issue.

     Petitioner filed an objection to respondent’s motion to

dismiss and attached a copy of a notice of deficiency for his tax

year 2000 that was dated September 26, 2002.    Thereafter, this
                                 - 3 -

Court ordered respondent to respond to petitioner’s objection and

to include an explanation of what records formed the basis for

respondent’s motion and an explanation of how petitioner’s tax

liabilities for the years at issued were determined.

     In respondent’s response he asserted that petitioner’s

unpaid tax liabilities for the years at issue had already been

assessed.   For tax year 2000 respondent’s records show that he

issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner and petitioner filed

a petition in this Court at docket No. 17725-02S.      A decision in

that case entered on July 23, 2003, redetermined a $3,478

deficiency in income tax for tax year 2000.      For tax year 2002

respondent’s records show that during 2004 respondent issued to

petitioner a notice of deficiency and that petitioner had agreed

with the proposed adjustments.    For tax year 2003 respondent’s

records show that petitioner’s timely filed tax return reported

an unpaid tax liability of $181.    On December 14, 2004,

petitioner filed an amended return for tax year 2003 indicating a

corrected tax liability of $3,696.       After reviewing petitioner’s

amended return, respondent determined an additional $210 in tax

owed, plus $18 of interest, for 2003 on the basis of petitioner’s

entries on his amended return.    Petitioner agreed to the

additional $228 for 2003.   For tax years 2005 and 2006

petitioner’s timely filed tax returns reported unpaid tax

liabilities of $703.07 and $631.54, respectively.
                               - 4 -

                            Discussion

     The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may

exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by

Congress.   Sec. 7442; 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 to a

taxpayer 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).    A timely petition is

required to be filed within 90 days after the mailing of the

notice of deficiency.   Sec. 6213(a).

     Petitioner, as the party invoking this Court’s jurisdiction,

bears the burden of proving that we have jurisdiction over the

matter.   See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.

268, 270 (2000), affd. 22 Fed. Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Fehrs

v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 346, 348 (1975); Wheeler’s Peachtree

Pharmacy, Inc. v. Commissioner, 35 T.C. 177, 180 (1960).     In

order to meet his burden, petitioner must affirmatively establish

all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction.   See David Dung Le,

M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 270.

     The only evidence petitioner proffered that might suggest

that this Court has jurisdiction is the notice of deficiency for

the tax year 2000, which respondent mailed to him on September

26, 2002.   Petitioner previously filed a petition regarding tax
                                 - 5 -

year 2000, and a decision was entered that is now final.         In any

event, the petition filed in the instant case was filed long

after the filing deadline for contesting the notice of deficiency

for 2000.

     Respondent acknowledges that in 2004 a notice of deficiency

was issued for tax year 2002.    Respondent’s records indicate that

petitioner had agreed to the adjustments therein.       In any event,

the petition in the instant case was filed long after the

deadline for filing a petition to contest the notice of

deficiency for 2002.

     As to tax years 2003, 2005, and 2006, respondent’s records

show that petitioner’s unpaid tax liabilities for these years

were based upon petitioner’s self-reported liabilities and that

no notices of deficiency have been issued.

     Petitioner has not made any assertions or proffered any

evidence that would indicate that this Court has jurisdiction

over his claims.   We will therefore grant respondent’s motion to

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              An appropriate order of

                                         dismissal for lack of

                                         jurisdiction will be entered.
