Opinion
35949-21
12-28-2022
RADU A. ZDRINCA & DELIA ZDRINCA, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DECISION
Albert G. Lauber Judge
Petitioners filed a timely joint Federal income tax return for 2019. On August 9, 2021, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) issued petitioners a notice of deficiency for 2019, determining a deficiency of $4,163. The deficiency results from the IRS's determination that petitioners had received unreported income. Petitioners petitioned this Court in November 2021.
By Order served August 19, 2022, this case was calendared on the Court's December 19, 2022, Washington, D.C., trial session. On November 1, 2022, in advance of that session, the IRS mailed to petitioners a Branerton letter explaining the Court's pre-trial requirements and requesting documents relevant to this case. Petitioners failed to respond to the letter and did not provide any of the requested documents by the deadline. On November 18, 2022, respondent spoke with petitioners by phone, requesting that they supply the necessary documents and informing them of their obligation to cooperate in filing a stipulation of facts. Petitioners verbally agreed to provide respondent with the requested documents, but they again failed to supply any documents before the calendar call.
This case was called from the calendar during the Court's December 19, 2022, Washington, D.C., trial session. There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioners. Respondent appeared and explained the facts set forth above. On December 22, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, representing that, since November 18, 2022, he has attempted to contact petitioners numerous times without success.
The standing pre-trial order in this case informed petitioners of their obligation to cooperate with respondent 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." We have entered judgments of default or dismissal where a taxpayer (among other things) failed to appear for trial. See Ritchie v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 126 (1979); Bond v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-313; Carlo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-165; Bixler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-329. Petitioners have not complied with our Rules, have failed to appear for trial, and have neglected properly to prosecute their case.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, filed December 22, 2022, is granted. It is further
ORDERED and DECIDED that there is a deficiency in income tax due from petitioners for the taxable year 2019 in the amount of $4,163.