Opinion
15454-21P
06-17-2022
IFEOMA EZEKWO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Albert G. Lauber Judge
This is a passport case under section 7345(e). We entered decision in this case on June 1, 2022, and the case is now closed. On June 3, 2022, petitioner filed three Motions, all of which we will deny.
Petitioner petitioned this Court on May 5, 2021. On February 9, 2022, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) filed a motion for summary judgment, and on March 17 petitioner opposed that motion. On April 12 petitioner submitted a motion for continuance, which we denied as moot on April 14 because we had already stricken the case from the April 11 trial session from which she sought to have it continued. On May 3, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of our April 14 order, which we denied on May 5.
On May 31, 2022, the Court issued a memorandum opinion, T.C. Memo. 2022-54, granting respondent's motion for summary judgment. The following day we entered a decision sustaining respondent's certification that petitioner has a seriously delinquent tax debt. The case is now closed.
On June 3, 2022, the Court received three Motions from petitioner. None of these motions is directed to our memorandum opinion or decision. Rather, the motions relate to motions respondent filed on May 2, 2022, seeking leave to file redacted versions of petitioner's opposition to the motion for summary judgment and petitioner's motion for continuance. Respondent represented that petitioner's filings contained unsupported allegations against a specific IRS employee, that these allegations were likely to cause harm and embarrassment, and these allegations were legally irrelevant to resolution of the issues before the Court in this passport case. Respondent also requested that we place under seal the original unredacted versions of petitioner's two filings.
By order dated May 5, 2022, we ordered sealed, for the reasons contained in respondent's motions, petitioner's opposition to the motion for summary judgment and her motion for continuance. As we explained, Tax Court Rule 103 permits the Court to "make any order which justice requires to protect a party or other person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." We then denied as moot respondent's motions for leave to file redacted versions of petitioner's filings. In a separate order dated the same day, we also sealed, for the same reasons, petitioner's motion for reconsideration of our April 14 order.
Petitioner now has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of our May 5 orders sealing her filings and two motions seeking leave to file oppositions to respondent's May 2 motions for leave. Her primary contention is that we addressed respondent's motions for leave without waiting for her to file oppositions. This Court is free to decide a motion, without awaiting or asking for a response, as we believe the interests of justice require. Petitioner sought to inject into this case scurrilous material that is irrelevant to the factual and legal issues presented by the case. Nothing in petitioner's current Motions would have affected the analysis in our May 5 orders. This case is already closed, and the issues that petitioner seeks to raise are entirely outside the scope of this case.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, filed June 3, 2022, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Redacted Motion Summary Judgment, filed June 3, 2022, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Redacted Motion for Continuance, filed June 3, 2022, is denied.