Opinion
1416-23S
05-23-2024
RACHID H. HATEM, DECEASED & WENDY L. HATEM, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER AND DECISION
Adam B. Landy Special Trial Judge
On May 22, 2024, the Commissioner filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution as to Rachid H. Hatem (Motion). The Commissioner states that the surviving spouse does not object to the Court granting the Motion. The parties also have filed a Stipulation of Settlement detailing the basis of settlement.
The Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a decision against the petitioner for failure to properly prosecute his case, failure to comply with the Rules of this Court or any order of the Court, or for any cause which the Court deems sufficient. Rule 123(b); Bauer v. Commissioner, 97 F.3d 45, 48-49 (4th Cir. 1996); Stearman v. Commissioner, 436 F.3d 533, 535-37 (5th Cir. 2006), aff'g, T.C. Memo. 2005-39; Edelson v. Commissioner, 829 F.2d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1987), aff'g, T.C. Memo. 1986-223. When a petitioner dies, the Court generally will order that a representative or successor be substituted as the proper party. Rule 63(a). If no representative of the decedent comes forward to prosecute the decedent's case before this Court, the procedural means for bringing the case to a close is a motion to dismiss for failure to properly prosecute the case. See Nordstrom v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 30, 32 (1968).
--------- Notes: Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The Court has been informed that there is no representative or fiduciary willing to act on behalf of Mr. Hatem's Estate under Michigan law. Consequently, the Court will dismiss this case for lack of prosecution.
Upon due consideration of the Commissioner's Motion, the parties' Stipulation of Settlement, and for cause, it is
ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution as to Rachid H. Hatem, filed May 22, 2024, is granted, and this case is dismissed on the stated ground as to the specific petitioner. It is further
ORDERED AND DECIDED: That there is no deficiency in income tax due from petitioners for the taxable year 2020, and that there is an overpayment in income tax due to petitioners for the taxable year 2020 in the amount of $2,876.00, which amount was paid on May 11, 2021, and for which amount a claim for refund could have been filed under the provisions of I.R.C. § 6511(b)(2) on October 18, 2022, the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency.