Opinion
3354-23
04-19-2023
TURNER JAMES SOLARI & LORENN MACY SOLARI, F.K.A. LORENN M. HARRELL, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On February 13, 2023, the Court received a letter by petitioners dated February 9, 2023. Attached thereto was a copy of a Notice of Deficiency dated November 14, 2022, determining a deficiency in petitioners' Federal income tax for the taxable year 2020. Although petitioners' submission did not comply with the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure as to the form and content of a proper petition, and, although petitioners failed to include the Court's $60.00 filing fee therewith, the Court filed the letter together with the Notice as an imperfect petition to commence this action in order to protect petitioners' rights to petition timely for a redetermination of the deficiency.
Thereafter, by Order served March 14, 2023, the Court directed petitioners to file a proper amended petition and pay the Court's filing fee. For petitioners' convenience, the Court attached a copy of a blank amended petition form to the copy of the Order served on petitioners. To date, petitioners have failed to comply with that Order.
On April 10, 2023, the Court received and filed a letter by petitioners dated March 29, 2023. Among other things, attached to the letter is a copy of the Court's Order served March 14, 2023. Petitioners' letter advises that they received the Order (and certain other documents that they have attached to the letter, including a copy of the Court's Notice of Receipt of Petition, served March 14, 2023, and the blank amended petition form) on March 27, 2023. The remainder of petitioners' letter includes a single statement, "THE OFFER TO CONTRACT HAS BEEN DECLINED!" and an apparent quote from a law treatise.
As noted, petitioners have been directed, and afforded a reasonable opportunity, to file a proper amended petition and pay the filing fee. And as noted, petitioners have failed to comply with that Order. Moreover, in response to that Order, petitioners have submitted a letter and other documents that indicate no intent to cure the aforementioned defects and proceed with this action.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.