Opinion
12620-23
12-08-2023
JAMAAR J. KING, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
On September 21, 2023, respondent filed in the above-docketed case a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, on the grounds that no notice of deficiency, as authorized by section 6212 and required by section 6213(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) to form the basis for a petition to this Court, had been sent to petitioner with respect to taxable years 2020 through 2022, nor had respondent made any other determination with respect to petitioner's tax years 2020 through 2022 that would confer jurisdiction on the Court, as of the date the petition herein was filed.
Subsequently, on December 6, 2023, the Court received from petitioner a document in apparent response to respondent's motion, which was filed as letter. That submission, which petitioner characterized as a "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal" set forth petitioner's position as follows:
The Petitioner hereby serves notice to the court and respondent that he voluntarily dismisses this action because it was improvidently originated.
After carefully re-reading everything taking everything in full consideration petitioner has concluded that respondent is correct and petitioner is seeking the wrong relief from my understanding now and I apologize for my misunderstanding do [sic] to the fact that I'm limited to my resources here on my end. So here now I will like to dismiss this in full please. . . .
Thus, at this juncture, it appears that petitioner has not objection to the dismissal of this proceeding. Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.