Opinion
18963-19
09-27-2021
Corichia Shonte Brisco, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DECISION
EMIN TORO, JUDGE
This case was set for trial during the Court's Kansas City, Missouri, remote trial session, beginning on September 20, 2021. On August 26, 2021, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Doc. 27), requesting that the case be dismissed and that a decision be entered sustaining the deficiencies in tax and penalties under I.R.C. section 6662(a) for petitioner's taxable years 2016 and 2017, as set forth on the notice of deficiency dated July 16, 2019.
Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
By Order served August 31, 2021, petitioner was directed to file a response to respondent's motion on or before September 13, 2021, and respondent's motion was set for hearing during the Court's September 20, 2021, Kansas City, Missouri, remote trial session. The Order warned petitioner that failure to respond or failure to appear at the remote hearing on September 20, 2021, could result in dismissal of the case and entry of decision against her.
On September 20, 2021, the case was called from the calendar at the Court's Kansas City, Missouri, remote trial session. Respondent's counsel appeared and was heard. There was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner. As of the date of this Order, no response to respondent's motion has been received from or on behalf of petitioner.
By Order served July 14, 2020, the Court directed respondent to demonstrate his compliance with section 6751(b)(1) by showing (1) the identity of the individual who made the "initial determination," (2) an approval of the penalty "in writing," (3) the identity of the person giving approval and his or her status as the "immediate supervisor" and (4) evidence that the supervisory approval was obtained timely. See sec. 6751(b)(1); Clay v. Commissioner. 152 T.C. 223, 249 (2019).
In response, on August 7, 2020, respondent filed a Status Report (Doc. 9) informing the Court of the identity of the individual who made the initial determination of the penalty, the identity of the individual who approved the penalty in writing, and the timing of those actions. Respondent included, as Exhibits A and B to the Status Report, redacted copies of the civil penalty approval form and the 30-day letter issued to petitioner. Petitioner did not object to respondent's showing of compliance with section 6751(b).
Upon due consideration, and for reasons more fully appearing in the transcript of the proceedings, it is hereby
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution filed August 26, 2021, is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of proper prosecution by petitioner. It is further
ORDERED AND DECIDED that there is a deficiency in income tax due from petitioner for the taxable years 2016 and 2017 in the amounts of $8, 118 and $5, 868, respectively; and
That there are penalties due from petitioner under the provisions of Internal Revenue Code section 6662(a) for the taxable years 2016 and 2017 in the amounts of $1, 623.60 and $1, 173.60, respectively.