Opinion
15422-22
08-15-2023
RAM ASONAJ & FAKETE ASONAJ, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DECISION
Albert G. Lauber Judge
With respect to petitioners' 2019 and 2020 tax years, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) determined deficiencies of $6,395 and $13,360, plus accuracy-related penalties of $1,279 and $2,672, respectively. The deficiencies stem from a determination that petitioners had failed to substantiate itemized deductions claimed on their 2019 and 2020 returns. Petitioners timely petitioned this Court in June 2022.
This case was originally calendared for in-person trial during the Court's June 20, 2023, New York, New York, trial session. We subsequently converted it to a remote proceeding to be conducted using Zoomgov. The log-in information for this proceeding was contained in a Notice of Change to Remote Proceedings, which was served upon the parties on June 9, 2023. That Notice warned petitioners, "[i]f you fail to appear the Court may dismiss your case for the failure to properly prosecute under Rule 149(a)."
When the case was called from the calendar on June 20, 2023, there was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioners. Counsel for respondent appeared and informed the Court that petitioners had failed to respond to his communications about preparing this case for trial and had failed to provide documents relevant to their disallowed deductions. Later that day respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution.
In his Motion respondent represented that petitioners had been uncooperative in preparing this case for trial, refusing to speak with respondent's counsel and declining to reply to his informal discovery requests. Rather, petitioners insisted that all communications be directed to their CPA, Mr. Farber, to whom they refer as their "Power of Attorney." But respondent represents that Mr. Farber had not submitted a Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative, authorizing him to represent petitioners before the IRS, despite several requests that he do so.
By Order served June 23, 2023, we directed petitioners to file a response to respondent's Motion on or before July 24, 2023. We warned petitioners that, if they failed to respond, we would likely dismiss their case and enter decision against them for the amounts set forth in respondent's Motion. Petitioners did not respond by that deadline 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, did not appear for trial, and have neglected properly to prosecute this case.
Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution, filed June 20, 2023, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of proper prosecution by petitioners. It is further
ORDERED and DECIDED that there are deficiencies in income tax due from petitioners for the taxable years 2019 and 2020 in the amounts of $6,395.00 and $13,360.00, respectively; and
There are penalties due from petitioners for the taxable years 2019 and 2020 under the provisions of I.R.C. § 6662(a) in the amounts of $1,279.00 and $2,672.00, respectively.