Opinion
1994-23L
09-24-2024
PAUL D. HESTER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Courtney D. Jones, Judge
On January 11, 2024, the Court issued an order to remand this case to respondent's Appeals Office for reconsideration (Doc. 28). On August 28, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion for Preservation Order (Doc. 56). Therein, petitioner stated that the "motion is necessitated by the highly suspicious and absurd destruction of critical evidence by the IRS, including the destruction of the 2020 tax return, despite it being submitted during an active Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing and referenced in Petitioner's filings for judicial review in the pending Tax Court cases." Among other things, petitioner requested that the Court "grant the Motion for a Preservation Order, requiring the IRS to preserve all remaining documents, electronic data, and materials related to the cases at issue."
On September 4, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Doc. 57). In the Motion, petitioner asked that this Court compel respondent "to produce all documents related to the destruction of Petitioner's tax filings for the periods 2011 through 2020." By his own admission, it does not appear that petitioner has complied with the procedures of Rule 72(b)(1) and (2) in seeking the production of the documents in question or in filing the Motion to Compel. In the Motion, petitioner stated that the "motion seeks immediate relief outside the typical scope of discovery to preserve what remains of the factual record."
Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Notwithstanding petitioner's pending cases before the Tax Court, the undersigned maintains jurisdiction of this case, Docket No. 1994-23L, as it pertains to a Notice of Determination issued to petitioner on January 26, 2023, for taxable years 2011 and 2012. In the instant case, the parties have yet to file to the administrative record per Rule 93(a). On September 13, 2024, respondent filed a Status Report (Doc. 59) attaching a copy of the Supplemental Notice of Determination for taxable years 2011 and 2012. Upon consideration of the above, this case will be set for trial. The Court expects the parties to follow the Standing Pretrial Order, served concurrently with this order, and the timeline set forth therein. We conclude that petitioner's motions are at best unnecessary and at worst unwarranted at this time.
Finally, we remind petitioner that he previously received a warning under section 6673, which authorizes this Court to impose sanctions, up to and including $25,000 on any taxpayer who initiates a lawsuit for the purpose of simply delaying the proceedings (Doc. 41, Transcript p. 8 ¶24-25, p. 9 ¶1-17). Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Preservation Order and Motion to Compel the Production of Documents are denied. It is further
ORDERED that this case is calendared for trial at the Court's February 24, 2025, trial session in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania scheduled to commence at 10:00 a.m. at the U.S. Custom House, 200 Chestnut Street, Room 300, 3rd Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall also serve on the parties copies of (1) the Notice Setting Case for Trial at the Court's February 24, 2025, trial session in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, (2) the Standing Pretrial Order for that same trial session, and (3) a clinic letter for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
This Order constitutes official notice of its contents to the parties.