Opinion
31605-21
04-08-2022
ANDY ATIGHI, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
On April 30, 2021, petitioner filed a petition at Docket No. 14501-21, seeking review of his 2010 and 2011 tax years. On May 19, 2021, petitioner filed a petition at Docket No. 18117-21, seeking review of his 2010, 2011, 2016, 2017, and 2018 tax years. On September 21, 2021, petitioner filed the petition to commence the case at Docket No. 31555-21 and the petition to commence this case, seeking review of his 2010, 2011, 2016, 2017, and 2018 tax years in each of those cases.
Petitioner's case at Docket No. 14501-21 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on November 4, 2021, a decision which petitioner appealed on November 23, 2021. That appeal is currently pending. Also on November 4, 2021, the Court, on its own motion, closed so much of petitioner's case at Docket No. 18117-21 relating to tax years 2010 and 2011 as duplicative of petitioner's case at Docket No. 14501-21.
On January 12, 2022, respondent filed in this case a motion to close on ground of duplication (motion to close). In the motion to close, respondent asserts that this case is duplicative of petitioner's case at Docket No. 31555-21. On January 20, 2022, petitioner filed an objection to respondent's motion to close. On January 21, 2022, respondent also filed in this case a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as to tax year 2018 as it relates to a notice of determination concerning collection action, a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement, a notice of determination of worker classification, a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015, a notice of certification of seriously delinquent Federal tax debt, and a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action (motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction). Petitioner filed an opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on February 1, 2022. Thereafter, on February 7, 2022, petitioner filed a first supplement to his opposition to respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
On April 5, 2022, in Docket No. 31555-21 the Court dismissed so much of that case relating to tax years 2010 and 2011 as duplicative of petitioner's case at Docket No. 14501-21 and closed so much of that case relating to tax years 2016 and 2017 as duplicative of petitioner's case at Docket No. 18117-21. Because petitioner prematurely petitioned his 2018 tax year at Docket No. 18117-21, Docket No. 31555-21 was not closed with respect to petitioner's 2018 tax year. However, by Order served April 5, 2022, the Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction so much of Docket No. 31555-21 relating to a notice of determination concerning collection action, a notice of final determination for disallowance of interest abatement, a notice of determination of worker classification, a notice of determination concerning relief from joint and several liability under section 6015, a notice of certification of seriously delinquent Federal tax debt, and a notice of determination under section 7623 concerning whistleblower action with respect to petitioner's 2018 tax year. Therefore, so much of the case relating to a notice of deficiency issued for petitioner's 2018 tax year remains pending before the Court at Docket No. 31555-21.
Upon due consideration of the records in the above-referenced cases, it appearing that this case in its entirety is duplicative of prior cases filed by petitioner, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion to close is granted in that so much of this case relating to tax years 2010 and 2011 is dismissed for duplication with respect to petitioner's case at Docket No. 14501-21, so much of this case relating to tax years 2016 and 2017 is closed for duplication with respect to petitioner's case at Docket No. 18117-21, and so much of this case relating to tax year 2018 is closed for duplication with respect to petitioner's case at 31555-21. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied as moot.