Opinion
5868-20
01-25-2022
7237 Retriever Lane Trust Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Lewis R. Carluzzo Chief Special Trial Judge
This case is before the Court on respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, filed December 1, 2021. Respondent's motion was heard on December 13, 2021, during the Phoenix, Arizona, remote trial session of the Court that started on that date. Counsel for respondent appeared and argued in support of the motion. There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner.
Jurisdiction
The petition in this case, filed July 10, 2020, contains nothing more than allegations that petitioner did not receive any notices of deficiency or notices of determination for the years 2000 through and including 2020. This is so, according to respondent's motion, because none were issued to him. That being so, given the Court's jurisdictional limitations as explained in respondent's motion, the motion must be granted.
I.R.C. Section 6673 Penalty
If it appears to the Court that a taxpayer has advanced a frivolous or groundless position in a case commenced in this Court, the Court can order the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not to exceed $25,000. The Court does not exist in a vacuum. This case follows the pattern of hundreds of other cases commenced by taxpayers who allege in the petitions that they have not received any notices of deficiency or notices of determinations from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for multiple years. Apparently, a case following this pattern is commenced only for the purpose of generating an order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. The taxpayer who initiated the case apparently does so with the expectation that the dismissal order will in some way or another prevent the IRS from assessing or collecting Federal taxes otherwise due, or relieve the taxpayer of the obligation to file Federal tax returns or pay Federal taxes for the years referenced in the petition. Things simply do not work that way.
Most taxpayers would be pleased to never hear from the IRS. In this case, petitioner complains about it. It appears to the Court that petitioner commenced this case with that expectation that an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction would insulate it from its Federal tax obligations for the years referenced in the petition. That expectation is unreasonable, and the position taken by petitioner in this proceeding advancing that expectation is groundless.
That being so, the imposition of a section 6673 penalty is appropriate. The amount of the penalty will reflect the time respondent spent in defending this case.
To reflect the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It it further
ORDERED that petitioner shall pay to the United States a $1,460 I.R.C. section 6673(a) penalty.