Opinion
37811-21
05-23-2024
LYNETTE ANGLIN-SIMMONS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Lewis R. Carluzzo Chief Special Trial Judge
This case for the redeterminations of deficiencies is before the Court on respondent's Motion for Entry of Decision, filed May 15, 2024. Respondent's motion accurately reflects the basis of settlement that was read into the record by respondent's counsel when the case was called for trial in Washington, D.C. on April 18, 2024. The terms of the settlement were unequivocally agreed to by petitioner after she acknowledged that she heard the terms of the settlement described by respondent's counsel. Because the parties agreed to settle the case, it did not proceed to trial.
We would not be reluctant to grant the motion and enforce the settlement, see Dorchester Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 320 (1997), except for the overpayment. In cases such as this one, the Court has the authority to determine an overpayment in a taxpayer's federal income tax, but no credit or refund of that overpayment of that tax is allowed unless the Court makes specific findings of fact with respect to it. See I.R.C. section 6512(b)(3). Under normal circumstances when the settlement of a deficiency case results in an overpayment, the parties stipulate to the facts necessary to support the Court's decision showing that overpayment. No such stipulation has been presented here, and nothing else in the record would allow the Court to make the necessary findings to allow for the refund or credit of the overpayment requested in respondent's motion. That being so, we are constrained to deny respondent's otherwise well-made motion.
Unless petitioner cooperates with respondent to submit the necessary documents to give effect to the basis of settlement the Court will consider dismissing the case and enter a decision as shown in respondent's motion with the exception of the determination of the overpayment.
Premises considered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion is denied.
The parties are advised that unless a Proposed Stipulated Decision (supported by the necessary stipulation to support the determination of an overpayment) is submitted on or before June 28, 2024, the Court will (1) dismiss this case because petitioner has failed properly to prosecute it, and (2) enter a decision as noted above. See Rule 123(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure (available on the Internet at www.ustaxcourt.gov).