Opinion
217-23
07-01-2024
JAMES LINDOR, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Lewis R. Carluzzo, Chief Special Trial Judge.
Petitioner is self-represented. The petition, as amended, suggests that for 2013, 2014 and 2015 petitioner is challenging: (1) a notice of deficiency; (2) a notice of determination concerning collection action; and (3) a certification made by the Secretary of Treasury to the Secretary of State pursuant to I.R.C. section 7345. There are no attachments to the petition, and nowhere in the petition does petitioner allege that respondent has failed to act on any claim for relief that could lead to jurisdiction in this Court over any of the years referenced in the petition. Numerous motions are now pending; some were heard in Los Angeles, California, on April 24, 2024. Petitioner appeared at the hearing as did counsel for respondent. Each motion is addressed below in the order it was filed.
Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed January 21, 2023
This motion was included in the above-referenced hearing. Substantively, the merits of the motion are questionable. Procedurally, as pointed out at the hearing, the motion is not timely because the pleadings are not yet closed. See Rule 121(b). (Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, available on the Internet at www.ustaxcourt.gov). That being so, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's motion is denied.
Petitioner's Motion for Sanctions, filed February 23, 2023
This motion (as recharacterized by the Court) was included in the above-referenced hearing. Petitioner's motion is directed towards certain information contained in respondent's motions filed February 24, 2023 (petitioner was given prior notice that the motions would be filed). According to the motion, respondent has improperly disclosed petitioner's Social Security Number, address, and "true name" (more on petitioner's correct name later). Respondent acknowledges that attachments to his motions were not properly redacted. See Rule 27. The record shows that upon being notified by petitioner of the disclosures, respondent promptly took appropriate action to protect the information. Following the hearing the Court confirmed that (1) no third-party made a request for a copy of either motion, and (2) neither motion was viewed by a third party while present at the courthouse in Washington, D.C. All things considered, sanctions are not appropriate. Consequently, it is
OREDERED that petitioner's motion is denied.
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed February 24, 2024
This motion was included in the above-referenced hearing. According to the motion, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner for 2015, but petitioner did not petition this Court in response to it within 90 days from the date the notice of deficiency was mailed. If the petitioner intended to challenge the deficiency determined in that notice of deficiency, the petition was not filed within the period prescribed by I.R.C. section 6213(a), and the Court has no jurisdiction over that deficiency. Organic Cannabis Found., LLC v. Commissioner, 962 F.3rd 1082 (9th Cir. 2020); Hallmark Rsch. Collective v. Commissioner, 159 T.C. 126 (2022). Respondent's motion represents that no other notice of deficiency was issued for any other year referenced in the petition, and petitioner does not challenge that representation.
Respondent's motion also represents that no notice of determination with respect to any collection action for any of the years referenced in the petition has been issued, again a point not disputed by petitioner.
Because respondent did not issue a notice of deficiency to petitioner for 2013 or 2014, and because respondent did not issue a notice of determination with respect to any collection to petitioner for any of the years referenced in the petition, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion is granted, and so much of this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction that proports to be a challenge to (1) the 2015 deficiency, and (2) to any collection action for the years referenced in the petition.
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief Can Be Granted, filed February 24, 2023
This motion was included in the above-referenced hearing. Respondent acknowledges that at least one certification contemplated by I.R.C. section 7345 was made before the petition was filed, and that petitioner has the right to challenge that certification pursuant to I.R.C. section 7345(e). According to respondent, however, petitioner has failed to make specific allegations in the petition that would give rise to a justiciable issue.
Although the petition is not as precise as we would like, and although we tend to agree with much of respondent's motion, we consider dismissal at this point in the proceedings to be inappropriate given petitioner's status as a self-represented litigant. Respondent has missed the opportunity to move for more specificity in the petition before answering the case. See Rules 36(a) and 51. At this point, informal and/or formal discovery can be used to focus on the exact nature of petitioner's challenge to the certification process. Once identified, the matter can properly be prepared for trial, resolved by summary adjudication, or resolved upon agreement of the parties. For those reasons, it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion to dismiss is denied. However, to eliminate perpetuating unnecessary or inappropriate matters referenced in the petition, as amended, it is further
ORDERED that except for part 4 of paragraph 5, and parts 3 and 4 of paragraph 6, all allegations and statements contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the petition, as amended, are stricken. In order to expedite further processing of this case, it is further
ORDERED that respondent's answer to the petition, as amended, is due not later than August 2, 2024. Order. See Rules 36(a) and 25(c).
Petitioner's Motion for an Order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), filed April 20, 2023
This motion was included in the above referenced hearing. Rule 502(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which allows for a court order to protect against waiver of privileged information, has no application to this case at this stage of the proceedings. The relief sought in the motion is at the same time unclear, seemingly unnecessary with respect to any issues justiciable in an I.R.C. section 7345(e) case, and more likely than not beyond the authority of the Court. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's motion is denied.
Petitioner's Motion for Dispositive Summary Judgment, filed November 28, 2023
This motion was included in the above-referenced hearing and is untimely for the same reason as petitioner's previously filed summary judgment motion. It follows and is
ORDERED that petitioner's motion is denied.
Petitioner's Motion to Enjoin and Refund Garnishments for Tax Years in this Case, filed May 31, 2024
Petitioner's motion was filed after the above-referenced hearing but a hearing on the motion is unnecessary. Because the Court has no authority in cases such as this one to grant the relief requested in the motion, it is further
ORDERED that petitioner's motion is denied.
Petitioner's Motion to Impose Sanctions, filed June 27, 2024
Petitioner's motion was filed after the above-referenced hearing but a hearing on the motion is unnecessary. According to the motion, respondent has failed to adequately respond to an offer in compromise made by petitioner. The motion requests that Court direct respondent to process and consider petitioner's offer in compromise. Because the Court has no authority in cases such as this one to grant the relief requested in the motion, it is further
ORDERED that petitioner's motion is denied.
Petitioner's Name as Shown in the Caption
"James Lindor" is not petitioner's name. The Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure do not allow for the use of pseudonyms in the captions of cases commenced in this Court. See Rule 23(a). If petitioner's use of the pseudonym is intended to allow him to proceed anonymously, then he must make an appropriate motion to do so. Within 30 days from date of service of this Order, unless petitioner submits (1) a motion to proceed anonymously, supported by sufficient grounds for such relief, or (2) a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case, the Court will amend the caption of this case to show petitioner's proper name.