Gillies v. CIR, 21-9000

Toi Gillies filed a pro se Tax Court petition alleging tax fraud and identity theft by her ex-husband and a tax preparer, apparently disputing tax years 2016–2019.
Her petition did not identify the dates of any IRS notices of deficiency or determination, nor did it attach copies of those notices.
The Commissioner moved for a more definite statement under Tax Court Rule 51(a); the Tax Court ordered Gillies to file a proper amended petition that included notice dates, taxable years, and copies of the disputed notices.
Gillies filed a response and an amended petition but still failed to attach the required notices or to establish which notices had been issued for which years; she argued discovery would supply the details.
The Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because Gillies did not establish that a notice of deficiency or a notice of determination had been issued or attach such a notice.
On appeal Gillies attached two IRS letters (not in the Tax Court record) claiming they were notices for 2016; the Tenth Circuit declined to consider those letters and affirmed dismissal, finding they were pre-deficiency communications, not notices that confer Tax Court jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Tax Court had jurisdiction absent pleaded dates and attached notices of deficiency or determination	Gillies contended her amended petition and later disclosures sufficed and discovery could supply details	Commissioner argued jurisdictional prerequisites (dates and copies of notices) were missing and moved for a more definite statement	Dismissal affirmed: Tax Court jurisdiction requires issuance and pleading/attachment of the notice; Gillies failed to meet that burden
Whether appellate court may consider IRS letters filed for the first time on appeal and whether those letters were notices of deficiency	Gillies argued the two IRS letters served as the 2016 notice of deficiency	Commissioner and Court argued the letters were pre-filing notifications, were not part of the Tax Court record, and thus could not be considered on appeal	Court refused to consider new evidence outside the record and held the letters were pre-deficiency notifications, not jurisdictional notices

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (per curiam) (pro se filings are construed liberally)
Anderson v. Commissioner, 62 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 1995) (standard of review for Tax Court jurisdictional dismissal)
Alford v. Commissioner, 800 F.2d 987 (10th Cir. 1986) (Tax Court lacks jurisdiction absent a notice of deficiency)
Guthrie v. Sawyer, 970 F.2d 733 (10th Cir. 1992) (notice of deficiency is a taxpayer’s ticket to Tax Court)
Boyd v. Commissioner, 451 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2006) (Tax Court §6330 jurisdiction depends on issuance of a valid notice of determination)
Page v. Commissioner, 297 F.2d 733 (8th Cir. 1962) (burden on party invoking Tax Court jurisdiction)
Abrams v. Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1987) (pre-filing IRS notification letters are not notices of deficiency)
Verlo v. Martinez, 820 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2016) (appellate courts will not consider evidence not in the lower-court record)
United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2000) (parties may not build a new record on appeal)