Opinion
27886-22S 6441-23
06-20-2023
PAUL AYAWO AMEGAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent PAUL AYAWO AMEGAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On March 14, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in the deficiency case at Docket No. 27886-22S, requesting that it be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code. By Order served April 10, 2023, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's Motion to Dismiss. No objection was filed in the case at Docket No. 27886-22S. On June 12, 2023, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction in that case.
On June 12, 2023, respondent filed a Motion to Close on Ground of Duplication in the case at Docket No. 6441-23. Therein, respondent requests that the case be closed because it is a duplicate of the case at Docket No. 27886-22S. Our review of the record in the case at Docket No. 6441-23 shows that, as respondent asserts, the case is a duplicate of petitioner's case at Docket No. 27886-22S. More specifically, such review shows that, in attempting to electronically file an objection to respondent's aforementioned Motion to Dismiss in the case at Docket No. 27886-22S, petitioner instead filed the document in error as a petition to commence a new case at Docket No. 6441-23.
In view of the foregoing, we will dismiss the case at Docket No. 6441-23 on the ground of duplication with the case at Docket No. 27886-22S. For completeness of the record in the case at Docket No. 27886-22S, we also will file in that case, as a motion to vacate, a copy of the Petition filed at Docket No. 6441-23, insofar as it sets forth petitioner's objection to respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Nevertheless, nothing in petitioner's objection persuades us to disturb our Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction granting that Motion to Dismiss. Rather, the record at Docket No. 27886-22S clearly establishes that the Petition in the case was not timely filed, and that, consequently, the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See I.R.C. §§ 6213(a), 7502; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022).
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall copy the Petition, filed April 28, 2023, at Docket No. 6441-23 and shall file a copy of it, as of the date of service of this Order, as petitioner's Motion to Vacate at Docket No. 27886-22S. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Vacate filed at Docket No. 27886-22S is denied. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Close on Ground of Duplication, filed June 12, 2023, at Docket No. 6441-23 is granted in that the aforementioned case is dismissed on the ground of duplication with the case at Docket No. 27886-22S.