Opinion
26746-22
10-27-2023
JEANNE LOUISE INGRESS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DECISION
Jennifer E. Siegel, Special Trial Judge
This case for the 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 6, 2023. According to respondent, because the petition (1) fails to raise a justiciable issue, and (2) fails to satisfy the requirements of Tax Court Rule 34(b), the case should be dismissed and decision should be entered against petitioner in the amounts as determined in the notice of deficiency.
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 2018 Federal income tax and imposed additions to tax under I.R.C. sections 6651 and 6654. A copy of the notice of deficiency dated August 29, 2022, is attached to the petition filed November 28, 2022. The deficiency determined in the notice takes into account unreported income and the allowance of certain deductions. Nothing in the petition (1) denied receipt of the income referenced in the notice, or (2) suggests that petitioner is entitled to deductions or credits not otherwise allowed in the notice. Instead, the allegations in the petition are frivolous and groundless and we reject them without further comment. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).
By Order dated May 31, 2023, the Court: (1) directed petitioner to file an objection, if any, to respondent's motion, and (2) gave petitioner the opportunity to cure the defective petition. She did neither.
Tax Court Rule 34(b)(4) requires that a petition contain clear and concise assignments of each and every error that the taxpayer alleges to have been committed by the Commissioner in the determination of the deficiencies and the additions to tax and/or penalties in dispute. Tax Court Rule 34(b)(5) 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 the requirements of Rule 34(b)(4) and (5). There is neither assignment of error nor allegation of fact in support of any justiciable claim.
We take this occasion to inform petitioner of the potential applicability of sanctions under I.R.C. section 6673(a)(1), which authorizes the Court to impose a sanction of up to $25,000 when it appears to the Court that a taxpayer's position is frivolous or groundless. We provide this caution because the petition in this case is frivolous. We further recommend that petitioner consider the Court's opinion in Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (2011). With that caution having been delivered, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion is granted, and this case is dismissed for failure to state a claim. It is further
ORDERED AND DECIDED that for 2018, there is a $4,002.00 deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax; that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax under I.R.C. section 6651(a)(1) of $900.45; that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax consistent with the provisions of I.R.C. section 6651(a)(2); and that petitioner is liable for an addition to tax pursuant to I.R.C. section 6654 of $129.74.