Opinion
13386-22
08-10-2023
FRANK PETER TROCINO & DONNA DOROTHY TROCINO, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DECISION
Albert G. Lauber, Judge.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) determined a deficiency of $2,567 due from petitioners for tax year 2020. The deficiency results from a determination that petitioners received additional taxable Social Security benefits. Petitioners petitioned this Court in May 2022. On May 25, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, representing that he had attempted to contact petitioners multiple times over the prior two and a half months without success.
This case was called from the calendar for the Court's June 20, 2023, remote trial session. There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioners. Counsel for respondent appeared, represented that he had reached petitioners by phone earlier that morning, informed them of the date and time of the session, and provided them with the login credentials for the virtual courtroom. We recalled the case later that morning, but there was still no appearance by petitioners. On June 21, 2023, respondent filed a First Supplement to the Motion in which he recounts his communications with petitioners on the morning of the calendar call.
By Order served June 22, 2023, we directed petitioners to file a response to the Motion to Dismiss (as supplemented) by July 20, 2023. We advised petitioners that failure to respond would likely result in the granting of respondent's Motion and entry of decision against them. Petitioners did not respond to that Order by June 22 or subsequently.
The standing pre-trial order in this case informed petitioners of their obligation to cooperate with respondent's counsel in preparing this case for trial or other disposition. Rule 123(b) of the Tax Court Rules provides that "[f]or failure of a petitioner properly to prosecute or to comply with these Rules or any order of the Court, . . . the Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a decision against the petitioner." Petitioners have not complied with our orders or Rules, have failed to appear for trial, and have neglected properly to prosecute their case.
Upon due consideration, and for cause more fully appearing in the transcript of the proceeding, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (as supplemented) is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of proper prosecution by petitioners. It is further
ORDERED and DECIDED that there is a deficiency in income tax due from petitioner for the taxable year 2020 in the amount of $2,567.