Opinion
9684-20
02-01-2022
SHARON P. CALONJE & FRANCISCO FLORES, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Maurice B. Foley Chief Judge
On November 18, 2021, respondent filed a document designated as a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to the Taxable Year 2021 and to Strike. Therein, respondent requests: (1) that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to the taxable year 2021 on the ground that no notice of deficiency has been issued to petitioners for such year, nor has respondent made any other determination that would permit petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for such year; (2) that the Court strike all portions of paragraph 3 of the Petition in which reference is made to the taxable year 2021; and (3) that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to the taxable year 2017 on the ground that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code, and that the Court find in its Order that there are a deficiency and penalty due from petitioners for such year in the amounts set forth in the Motion.
Our review of the Petition reveals no apparent reference to the taxable year 2021. It appears that respondent's request is instead directed to the First Amended Petition, filed September 20, 2021.
For the following reasons, respondent's Motion is improper and the Court will strike it from the record in this case. First, and foremost, the Motion requests that the Court dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction as to the taxable year 2017 but- in the same sentence-requests that the Court enter a decision for such year. If the Court lacks jurisdiction over the taxable year 2017, as respondent asserts at length in the Motion, we cannot, as a matter of law, enter a decision for that year. Second, even if we were to recharacterize respondent's Motion, insofar as it concerns the 2017 taxable year, as a motion for entry of decision, it would represent an improper joinder of motions, given that the Motion additionally requests that the Court dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction as to the 2021 taxable year. Third, respondent's Motion is substantively mislabeled: The title references only the 2021 taxable year, but in substance the Motion seeks to dismiss this entire case for lack of jurisdiction.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's above-referenced Motion is hereby deemed stricken from the Court's record in this case.