Opinion
20267-23
07-11-2024
KYLE FINNEY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DECISION
Peter J. Panuthos Special Trial Judge.
This case for redetermination of a deficiency is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, filed February 8, 2024. By Order served February 9, 2024, the Court directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion, on or before March 5, 2024; petitioner failed to do so. Because an amended petition has not been filed, we review respondent's motion against the allegations contained in the Petition. Petitioner resided in Arizona when the Petition was filed.
Rule 34(b)(1)(G) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure requires that a petition contain clear and concise assignments of each and every error the taxpayer alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of a deficiency and/or related additions to tax and penalties. Rule 34(b)(1)(H) further requires that the petition contain clear and concise lettered statements of the facts on which the taxpayer bases the assignments of error. See Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 646, 658 (1982).
The Petition filed in this case does not satisfy these pleading requirements. Moreover, the allegations and statements contained in the Petition fail to give rise to any justiciable issue. That being so, and because petitioner has failed to take the opportunity to cure the defective petition, respondent's motion will be granted. See Rules 34(a), 123(b); Scherping v. Commissioner, 747 F.2d 478 (8th Cir. 1984); see also Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986).
The Court may impose a penalty of up to $25,000 if a taxpayer institutes or maintains a frivolous or groundless position or institutes or maintains a proceeding primarily for delay. In his Petition, petitioner advanced familiar tax protester arguments to avoid tax obligations, which the courts have repeatedly held are frivolous and groundless. As has been said on numerous occasions: "We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); see also Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498, 501-13 (2011). Petitioner is admonished that should he continue to pursue frivolous or groundless arguments before the Court, or if he institutes or maintains a case primarily for delay, he may be subject to penalties under I.R.C. section 6673 up to the amount of $25,000. Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. at 513-14 (imposing a section 6673 penalty for tax protester arguments).
Upon due consideration and for cause, it is therefore
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted, filed February 8, 2024, is granted, and this case is dismissed on the stated ground. It is further
ORDERED and DECIDED that there is a deficiency in income tax due from petitioner for the taxable year 2021 in the amount of $16,234.00; and
That there is an accuracy-related penalty due from petitioner for the taxable year 2021 under the provisions of I.R.C. section 6662(a) in the amount of $3,247.00.