Opinion
24117-22
04-20-2023
COREY JAMAL LOTT, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Diana L. Leyden Special Trial Judge
On October 31, 2022, petitioner filed a Petition in this case asserting that he was disputing a Notice of Determination of Worker Classification and that he never received any such notice. Petitioner did not provide the year or years for which he was disputing any such notice.
On January 5, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (motion) on the grounds that a notice that would invoke the Court's jurisdiction was not issued to petitioner. In a February 10, 2023, Order the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion. Petitioner was warned that failure to comply with the order may result in the granting of respondent's motion and dismissal of the case. Petitioner did not file an objection to respondent's motion. By Order served March 23, 2023, respondent's motion was assigned to the undersigned for disposition. The Court attempted to schedule a conference call with the parties but was unsuccessful.
Because petitioner's Petition fails to establish that this Court has jurisdiction and petitioner failed to file an objection to respondent's motion, the Court shall grant respondent's motion and dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. See Rules 13 and 34.
Respondent informed the Court in his motion that petitioner has a history of filing petitions which have been dismissed primarily for reasons of duplication and lack of jurisdiction. The Court takes this opportunity to inform petitioner that it may impose an additional penalty of up to $25,000 if he institutes or maintains a frivolous or groundless petition or institutes or maintains a proceeding primarily for delay. I.R.C. § 6673(a)(1). Although a section 6673 penalty will not be imposed here, petitioner is admonished that the Court will consider imposing such a penalty in future cases if petitioner files additional pleadings in this case or again files another petition and begins another case asserting the same tax protester rhetoric.
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed January 5, 2023, is granted and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.