Opinion
30764-21S
04-11-2023
KHAM D. LUONG, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Kathleen Kerrigan Chief Judge
By Order to Show Cause served May 6, 2022, the Court directed each party to show cause in writing why this deficiency case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the Petition was not filed within the time prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code. Thereafter, by Order served January 17, 2023, the Court extended the time for the parties to respond as previously directed.
On February 8, 2023, respondent filed a Response. Therein, respondent asserts that the Petition in this case was not timely filed and that, consequently, this case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. To date, petitioner has failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause, despite being warned that such a failure could result in the dismissal of this case.
The record in this case shows that the Petition was not timely filed. See I.R.C. §§ 6213(a), 7502; Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, No. 21284-21, 159 T.C. (Nov. 29, 2022). Accordingly, and in view of petitioner's failure to "establish affirmatively all facts giving rise to our jurisdiction," David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270 (2000), aff 'd, 22 Fed.Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001), it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause is hereby made absolute. It is further
ORDERED that, on the Court's own motion, this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.