Opinion
11750-22
11-04-2022
KAYLYN BELCIK, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Mary Ann Cohen Judge
On May 16, 2022, petitioner filed a Petition for review of a notice of deficiency. On July 22, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, or, in the Alternative to Strike. On August 20, 2022, petitioner filed an Objection to respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. Also on August 20, 2022, petitioner filed an Amended Petition. On August 22, 2022, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. On October 14, 2022, respondent filed a Supplement to the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, or, in the Alternative to Strike. On October 26, 2022, petitioner filed a Reply to Respondent's Motions.
Petitioner's Amended Petition supersedes the original Petition, so we will not address the extraneous and frivolous material in the original Petition. The Amended Petition deletes most of the irrelevant legal citations but moves them to petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Motions. Still within the Petition are insufficient claims or defenses, and redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and frivolous assertions, which are subject to be stricken. See Rule 52, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioner has serious misunderstandings about the law and respondent's limited burden of going forward with respect to unreported income.
Notwithstanding the absurdities in petitioner's filings, as shown in respondent's motion, they occasionally state a dispute as to the deficiencies and penalties. Because this case involves a penalty for fraudulent failure to file returns, respondent should file an answer with detailed allegations of fraud supporting the penalty. However, neither respondent, nor the Court, should be required to deal further with petitioner's frivolous claims. If petitioner continues to pursue the same course of action, the Court is likely to impose an additional penalty not to exceed $25,000 under Internal Revenue Code section 6673. See generally, Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498, 501-514 (2011).
We conclude that the appropriate action in this case is to grant respondent's request in the alternative that certain portions of the Amended Petition be stricken. Upon due consideration and for cause, it is hereby
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed August 22, 2022, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, or, in the Alternative to Stike filed July 22, 2022, and supplemented on October 14, 2022, is granted as to the alternative motion to strike, in that paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12-19 of the Amended Petition filed August 20, 2022, are deemed stricken and need not be answered. Respondent's motion is otherwise denied, and the answer to the remaining allegations will be due December 27, 2022.