Opinion
4116-23SL
09-26-2023
JACK RAYMOND TAKALA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Kathleen Kerrigan, Chief Judge
On February 24, 2023, petitioner filed the Petition to commence this case. Petitioner seeks review of a notice of determination concerning collection action issued with respect to a proposed levy for his 2019 tax year. The notice of determination states: "Levy action is not appropriate when a taxpayer's account has been paid in full. As such, the levy is not appropriate and is not sustained. Tax year 2019 is paid in full."
On April 20, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on Ground of Mootness, asserting that (1) petitioner has fully paid the 2019 income tax liability at issue in this case, and (2) because the tax liability has been fully paid, respondent no longer needs and does not intend to levy to collect any tax liability for petitioner's 2019 tax year. On June 22, 2023, petitioner filed an Objection to Motion to Dismiss on Ground of Mootness. Petitioner seeks to have the Court deny respondent's Motion on the grounds that respondent (1) applied an overpayment from another tax year to petitioner's 2019 tax liability and (2) failed to consider petitioner's amended return for 2019.
The record establishes that petitioner has no remaining tax liability for the year at issue in this case. Furthermore, respondent has represented in the notice of determination and the Motion to Dismiss that there will be no further collection action with respect to petitioner's income tax liability for 2019. On these facts, petitioner's challenge to the collection action is moot. See Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 7-8 (2006); cf. Vigon v. Commissioner, 149 T.C. 97, 105 n.4 (2017). To the extent petitioner seeks a determination of an overpayment for 2019, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant that relief in this collection case. See Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C at 12-13.
However, although petitioner may not prosecute a case in this Court, he may continue to pursue administrative resolution of his 2019 amended return directly with the Internal Revenue Service. Also, petitioner may possibly bring a suit for refund in the appropriate Federal district court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. See McCormick v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 138, 142 n.5 (1970); Internal Revenue Code § 6511(a).
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss on Ground of Mootness is granted, and this case is dismissed.