Opinion
18696-23S
03-06-2024
RENE J. ANINAO & KRISTIN M. BACHMANN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On November 28, 2023, the Petition was filed in this case at Docket No. 18696-23S. Petitioners request that the Court enforce certain stipulations included in a stipulated decision, entered March 12, 2020, in petitioner Rene J. Aninao's prior case at Docket No. 10084-19S.
The record shows that on April 1, 2019, respondent issued a notice of deficiency jointly to petitioners for the tax year 2016. On June 14, 2019, petitioner Rene J. Aninao filed a timely petition assigned Docket No. 10084-19S challenging the 2016 notice of deficiency. On March 12, 2020, the Court entered a decision at Docket No. 10084-19S. The Court's decision at Docket No. 10084-19S is now final. Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 7481(b). On November 28, 2023, petitioners filed the Petition in the present case.
The decision entered in the case at Docket No. 10084-19S provided that there was a deficiency in income tax due from petitioner Rene J. Aninao for the taxable year 2016 in the amount of $31,535.00 and that there was no penalty due for the taxable year 2016 under the provisions of I.R.C. section 6662(a). The parties included, below the Court's decision, the following stipulation: "It is further stipulated that the Petitioner is entitled to a withholding credit in the amount of $25,030.00 for the taxable year 2016 and that the deficiency for the taxable year 2016 is computed without regard to the withholding credit of $25,030.00." Petitioners now seek to enforce this stipulation.
While the Court is sympathetic to petitioners' circumstances and understands that this case was filed after petitioners became frustrated in trying to work with the Internal Revenue Service to determine the amount that remains unpaid for their 2016 tax year, there appears to be fundamental jurisdictional defects in this case.
To the extent that petitioners ask the Court to enforce the stipulation included in the decision in Rene J. Aninao's case at Docket No. 10084-19S, the decision in that case has long since become final, see I.R.C. § 7481(b), and we no longer have jurisdiction as to Rene J. Aninao's 2016 tax year. Nor is there any indication that respondent has issued any additional notice of deficiency or notice of determination for tax year 2016 that would permit Rene J. Aninaoi to invoke the Court's jurisdiction for that year. Accordingly, this case is duplicative with respect to Rene J. Aninao's previously filed case at Docket No. 10084-19S, and petitioner Rene J. Aninao must be dismissed from this case for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds of duplication.
Furthermore, as to petitioner Kristin M. Bachmann, the Court may not properly have jurisdiction in this case because the petition appears untimely. Our jurisdiction in a deficiency case depends on the issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and the timely filing of a petition within 90 days of the issuance of the notice. See I.R.C. § 6213(a); Rochelle v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), aff 'g 116 T.C. 356 (2001); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126, 130, n.4 (2022) (collecting cases). The notice of deficiency on which this case is based indicates that the last day to file a petition with the Tax Court was July 1, 2019. As noted above, the Petition in this case was electronically filed on November 28, 2023. Accordingly, it appears that as to petitioner Kristin M. Bachmann the Petition was not timely filed and, if not, this Court is without jurisdiction as to petitioner Kristin M. Bachmann.
Upon due consideration, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that so much of this case relating to petitioner Rene J. Aninao is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds of duplication with respect to the case at Docket No. 10084-19S. It is further
ORDERED that the caption of this case is changed to "Kristin M. Bachmann, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent." It is further
ORDERED that, on or before April 3, 2024, petitioner Kristin M. Bachmann and respondent shall each show cause, in writing, why the Court should not dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds the Petition was not timely filed. Petitioner shall attach to her response copies of all documents on which she relies to establish that the Petition in this case was timely filed.