Opinion
20438-19L
04-04-2022
BRIAN K. BUNTON & KAREN A. BUNTON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Christian N. Weiler Judge.
Trial of this matter was held before the Court on February 2, 2021. The Court rendered its Opinion (T.C. Memo. 2021-141) in this matter on December 28, 2021. The Court entered a decision on this matter and served it on the parties, on January 5, 2022. On January 25, 2022, petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration and respondent did not oppose petitioners' motion. The Court subsequently granted petitioners' motion on February 28, 2022, and directed them to file their motion for reconsideration on or before March 18, 2022, and respondent to file a response on or before April 15, 2022. On March 7, 2022, petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration.
Given that we are denying petitioners' request, respondent need not file a response by the April 15, 2022, deadline.
Petitioners' March 7, 2022, motion was filed as petitioners' "Motion to Vacate," which included both a motion to vacate and a motion for reconsideration. For consistency, we will refer to this motion as petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
As discussed below, the Court will deny petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
In their motion to vacate, petitioners contend that two arguments were raised but not addressed by the Court in its Opinion. The first being "[w]e do not believe [the] IRS has followed all of the applicable administrative rules and regulations in this case." Second, "[t]he Notice of Deficiency . . . that you sent us is void as a matter of law."
In regard to petitioners' first argument, the Court not only addressed whether the IRS followed all of the applicable administrative rules and regulations in this case, but we provided a detailed analysis for our decision. See Bunton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-141, at *18-*19.
Petitioners' second argument contends that the notice of deficiency respondent sent to petitioners was not signed under penalties of perjury. I.R.C. § 6065 requires returns to contain or be verified by a written declaration that they are made under the penalties of perjury. Courts have held that I.R.C. § 6065 does not apply to notices issued by the Commissioner and its requirements are directed at documents that are originated by the taxpayer. See e.g., Morelli v. Alexander, 920 F.Supp. 556 (S.D.N.Y 1996). We have held that I.R.C. § 6065 does not require an Appeals officer to sign a notice of determination under penalties of perjury. Davis v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 35, 42 (2000). We have also held that I.R.C. § 6065 does not require that the notice of deficiency be signed under penalties of perjury. See Milam v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-94, slip. op. at 7; Scruggs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-355; Spencer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977-145.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that petitioners' motion for reconsideration filed March 7, 2022, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that respondent is relieved of the obligation to file a response to petitioners' motion for reconsideration.