Shulbe v. Commissioner of Revenue, 9436-R

• Decision Date: 08 March 2021
• Docket Number: 9436-R
• Parties: Kidane S. Shulbe, Appellant, v. Commissioner of Revenue, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Tax Court of Minnesota

Kidane S. Shulbe, Appellant, v. Commissioner of Revenue, et al., Appellees.

No. 9436-R

Tax Court of Minnesota, Regular Division, Dakota County

March 8, 2021

ORDER GRANTING COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

This matter came before the Honorable Jane N. Bowman, Judge of the Minnesota Tax Court, on the Commissioner's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.

Appellant Kidane S. Shulbe is self-represented.

Mawerdi Hamid, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General represents appellees Commissioner of Revenue and the Minnesota Attorney General's Office.

The Commissioner of Revenue moves for partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over many-but not all-of the claims raised against the Commissioner, and that this court similarly lacks subject matter jurisdiction over all the claims raised against the Minnesota Attorney General's Office. This court also analyzed, sua sponte, its jurisdiction over named appellees Ashley Rose Henke and Kyle William Brooks.

Having heard and considered the arguments of the parties, and upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, the court now makes the following:

ORDER

1. The Commissioner's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings is granted.

a. Appeals of the Commissioner of Revenue's orders dated April 29, 2019 (for tax year 2017), and June 27, 2019 (for tax year 2018), are dismissed.

b. Claims against the Minnesota Attorney General's Office are dismissed.

2. Ashley Rose Henke and Kyle William Brooks are dismissed from Mr. Shulbe's tax appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MEMORANDUM

Jane N. Bowman, Judge

Mr. Shulbe appeals the Commissioner of Revenue's orders dated April 29, 2019; June 27, 2019; and August 11, 2020.^[1] Mr. Shulbe's appeal also names the Minnesota Attorney General's Office, Ms. Henke, and Mr. Brooks as appellees.^[2] The Commissioner moves to dismiss appeals of two of the three orders as untimely.^[3] The Commissioner further moves to dismiss the Minnesota Attorney General's Office from this appeal.^[4] Finally, this court, on its own initiative, dismisses Ashley R. Henke and Kyle W. Brooks from this appeal.

I. Background

With a July 9, 2018 letter, the Department of Revenue notified Mr. Shulbe that it was reviewing his 2017 individual income tax return.^[5] As a result of this review, the Department issued a Notice of Change to Individual Income Tax dated August 23, 2018, which changed his filing status from head of household to single, disallowed claimed dependents, and disallowed the working family credit.^[6] Mr. Shulbe administratively appealed the August 23, 2018 order.^[7] With an April 29, 2019 Notice of Determination on Appeal, the Department affirmed its original determination.^[8]

With a March 6, 2019 letter, the Department notified Mr. Shulbe that it was reviewing his 2018 individual income tax return.^[9] On June 27, 2019, the Department issued a Notice of Change to Individual Income Tax, which adjusted Mr. Shulbe's filing status to single and disallowed dependents, the working family credit, and the K-12 education credit.^[10]

Finally, with a July 20, 2020 letter, the Department notified Mr. Shulbe that it was reviewing his 2019 individual income tax return.^[11] On August 11, 2020, the Department issued a Notice of Change to Individual Income Tax, which again changed his filing status to single and disallowed dependents, the working family credit, and the K-12 education credit.^[12]

Mr. Shulbe filed this appeal on September 17, 2020, challenging the Notice of Determination on Appeal for 2017, and the Notices of Change to Individual Income Tax for 2018 and 2019.^[13] On November 2, 2020, the Commissioner brought the current motion, which Mr. Shulbe opposed.^[14] A telephonic hearing was held on December 8, 2020.^[15]

II. The Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss Mr. Shulbe's Appeal Concerning the 2017 and 2018 Tax Years

The Commissioner first moves for partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing the appeal of two of the three orders are untimely.^[16] Civil Procedure Rule 12.03 states that "[a]fter the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings." Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.03. Under Minnesota law, a taxpayer has 60 days to appeal an order of the Commissioner. Minn. Stat. § 271.06, subd. 2 (2020).^[17] Failure to timely file an appeal deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Langer v. Comm'r of Revenue, 773 N.W.2d 77, 80 (Minn. 2009); see also Olson v. Comm'r of Revenue, No. A20-1048, __ N.W.2d __, 2020 WL 7765883 (Minn. Dec. 30, 2020) (affirming this court's dismissal of an untimely appeal).

Mr. Shulbe's appeal was received by this court on September 17, 2020.^[18] Although his appeal of the August 11, 2020 order was timely, his appeal of the April 29, 2019 and June 27, 2019 orders was filed well after the close of the statutory 60-day appeal period. Accordingly, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the late-filed appeals; the challenges to the April 29, 2019 and June 27, 2019 orders are dismissed. See Land O'Lakes Dairy Co. v. Hintzen, 225 Minn. 535, 538, 31 N.W.2d 474, 476 (1948) ("[A] statute defining and limiting jurisdiction is to be construed as jurisdictional and as limiting the power of the court to act.").

III. The Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss Claims Against the Minnesota Attorney General's Office

The Commissioner next moves to dismiss claims against the Minnesota Attorney General's Office.^[19] For the following reasons, this court agrees that it does not have jurisdiction over Mr. Shulbe's claims against the Minnesota Attorney General's Office; his allegations of obstruction of justice are dismissed.

This court's jurisdiction is defined by statute: this court "shall be the sole, exclusive, and final authority for the hearing and determination of all questions of law and fact arising under the tax laws of the state …." Minn. Stat. § 271.01, subd. 5 (2020). Conversely, the "Tax Court shall have no jurisdiction in any case that does not arise under the tax laws of the state …." Id. "An administrative agency's jurisdiction … is limited and is dependent entirely upon the statute under which it operates." Wilson v. Comm'r of Revenue, 619 N.W.2d 194, 199 (Minn. 2000) (alteration in original) (quoting McKee v. Cty. of Ramsey, 310 Minn. 192, 195, 245 N.W.2d 460, 462 (1976)). Statute specifically grants this court authority to hear appeals of orders of the Commissioner. Minn. Stat. § 271.05 (2020) ("The Tax Court shall have power to review and redetermine orders or decisions of the commissioner of revenue upon appeal therefrom in the cases authorized by law."); Minn. Stat. § 271.06 (describing the manner and process by which a taxpayer can appeal an order of the Commissioner).

Mr. Shulbe names the Minnesota Attorney General's Office in his complaint, seeking $100, 000 from the Office for "obstruction of justice," as evidenced by covering up "baseless" acts by the Minnesota Department of Revenue, among other alleged examples of obstruction.^[20]Obstruction of justice is not a claim arising under Minnesota's taxing statutes. See generally Minn. Stat. chs. 270-99 (2020). This court is thus without subject matter jurisdiction to hear Mr. Shulbe's claims of obstruction of justice. See Minn. Stat. § 271.01, subd. 5 ("The Tax Court shall have no jurisdiction in any case that does not arise under the tax laws of the state …."). Accordingly, Mr. Shulbe's claims against the Minnesota Attorney General's Office are dismissed.

IV. Claims Against Ashley R. Henke and Kyle W. Brooks

Although no party raised this court's jurisdiction to hear matters as against Ashley R. Henke and Kyle W. Brooks, this court is obligated to recognize that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Henke and Mr. Brooks and so dismisses the claims against them. "Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action." Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.08(c); see In re Welfare of M.J.M., 766 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Minn.App. 2009) (citing Marzitelli v. City of Little Canada, 582 N.W.2d 904, 907 (Minn. 1998)) ("[L]ack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by the parties or sua sponte by the court, and cannot be waived by the parties."). Here, any claims as against Ms. Henke and Mr. Brooks do not comport with the authority granted this court by statute. See Minn. Stat. §§ 271.05-.06 (granting this court the power to review orders of the Commissioner and providing for the manner and procedure for a taxpayer to appeal an order of the Commissioner). As a result, this court dismisses claims against Ms. Henke and Mr. Brooks for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

V. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, this court grants the Commissioner's motion for partial dismissal on the pleadings. This court also dismisses the claims against the Minnesota Attorney General's Office. Additionally, this court dismisses Ms. Henke and Mr. Brooks from this case.

---------

Notes:

^[1] Not. Appeal (filed Sept. 17, 2020). Mr. Shulbe identifies three different dates in his Notice of Appeal-August 23, 2018; April 24, 2019; and July 21 2020-which all correspond to documents related to a review of his 2017 individual income tax return (a Notice of Change to Individual Income Tax dated August 23, 2018; a Notice of Determination of Appeal with a notice date of April 29, 2019 but which was received by Mr. Shulbe on April 24, 2019; and a Payment for Debt dated July 21, 2020). However, because Mr Shulbe also cites his 2018 and 2019 tax year filings in his Notice of Appeal, we have construed his case as a challenge to the Commissioner's...